“Is this article consistent with the latest thinking and knowledge in science?”
“Would experts in this field endorse the main message of this article?”

These are the types of questions our “feedbacks” are designed to answer. If the feedback is positive, you can generally assume the information you’re reading is of high credibility. If it’s negative, however, you may want to read with extra care and attention — some of the information contained and conclusions reached are not consistent with science.[1]


Destruction of the Amazon forest very likely contributes to global warming, as accurately described in The National Geographic article

in National Geographic, by Craig Welch

"The article is good overall, although there are two small issues. First, the title seems to overestimate the results. The scientific study the National Geographic article is based on cannot account for all of the climate forcers, as there are no Amazon basin wide estimates (as clearly stated in the study). This drawback could potentially change the overall warming effect, and therefore the title seems to exaggerate."

— 23 Mar 2021


Atlantic ocean circulation system is slowing down, as accurately described in The New York Times article

in The New York Times, by Moises Velasquez-Manoff and Jeremy White

"This article is well-written, and the visuals are outstanding. It is a very strong piece of science communication. That being said, there is at least one error. The author mistakenly conflates the long-term warming hole with the shorter-term North Atlantic cold anomaly. The two phenomena have very different timescales and are likely driven by different mechanisms."

— 11 Mar 2021


Misleading Wall Street Journal opinion piece makes the unsubstantiated claim that the U.S. will have herd immunity by April 2021

in Wall Street Journal, by Marty Makary

"The article’s claim that the U.S. is near herd immunity rests on two numbers: 1) the detection of infections by testing (claimed to be 10 – 25 percent) and 2) the infection fatality rate (claimed to be 0.23 percent). Using the same number of deaths as the author indicates that 0.15%/0.6% = 25% of the U.S. population has been infected, rather than two-thirds as the author claims. Thus, the author’s argument that 55 – 66 percent of the U.S. population has already been infected and has immunity is not supported by available data."

— 26 Feb 2021


Breitbart article makes numerous false claims about the impacts of climate change, based on Global Warming Policy Foundation post

in Breitbart, by James Delingpole, Dr. Indur Goklany

"The article’s scientific credibility is very low. The author cherry-picks data, makes broad generalizations and characterizations based on incomplete or flimsy reasoning, and repeatedly misinterprets technological and economic progress in justifying false claims and misinformation minimizing global warming impacts."

— 12 Feb 2021


Video interview of Ian Plimer at Sky News falsely claims that a new study announces an incoming ice age, partly based on an incorrect Daily Mail headline

in Sky News, by Ian Plimer

"This video is chock full of false and misleading information, and presented in a way to make the correct scientific information seem like a farce. For example, the direct link between human emissions of carbon dioxide and global warming is very well established. The physics and chemistry of this link has been understood for well over 100 years, and science continues to affirm it."

— 20 Jan 2021


New York Post article makes speculative, unsupported claim that mutation could enable the virus causing COVID-19 to evade handwashing and mask-wearing

in New York Post, by Jackie Salo

"The preprint that the article focuses on actually says nothing about the most egregious claim made in the article: that the virus is evolving to get around hand-washing, masks, etc. This comes from a quote from someone who’s not an author on the preprint, giving an opinion about the preprint…on a topic not covered by the preprint."

— 08 Oct 2020


Article by The Daily Caller oversimplifies drivers of wildfires and downplays role of climate change

in The Daily Caller, by Chris White

"The causes of the increase in burned area in the western US in recent decades – and the record-setting fires of 2020 – are complex, driven by a mix of a changing climate, a 100-year legacy of overzealous fire suppression in forests adapted for frequent low-level fires, more people living in highly flammable wildland urban interface areas, and at times a counterproductive role of some environmental regulations. However, this article glosses over much of this complexity, presenting a simple but misleading narrative that land management rules enacted by the Clinton administration set the stage for the destructive fires we are experiencing today."

— 28 Sep 2020


Article by CNN exaggerates study’s implications for future Greenland ice loss with “point of no return” claim

in CNN, by Max Claypool and Brandon Miller

The article in CNN discusses findings from a study published August, 2020 that analyzes trends of ice discharge from the Greenland Ice Sheet over the past three decades[1]. Reports on this study were also published by Reuters and Phys.org, receiving over 200,000 interactions on Facebook across the three articles, according to CrowdTangle. Scientists who reviewed … Continued

— 20 Aug 2020


Potential role for T cells in COVID-19 immunity accurately reported in National Geographic article

in National Geographic, by Carrie Arnold

"The article accurately discusses the recent findings about the presence/relevance of T cell response against COVID-19. Indeed, both arms of adaptive immunity, humoral and cellular, contribute in different ways to the body’s fight against viral infections. What remains to be seen and explored in greater detail is how important the role of antigen-specific T cells is in protecting people from a re-infection or ameliorating the disease symptoms."

— 19 Aug 2020


Article by Michael Shellenberger mixes accurate and inaccurate claims in support of a misleading and overly simplistic argumentation about climate change

in Forbes, by Michael Shellenberger

"Shellenberger’s article promoting his new book “Apocalypse Never” includes a mix of accurate, misleading, and patently false statements. While it is useful to push back against claims that climate change will lead to the end of the world or human extinction, to do so by inaccurately downplaying real climate risks is deeply problematic and counterproductive."

— 06 Jul 2020


[1] Note: These feedbacks do not constitute endorsements of the author’s political or economic ideology, rather they are assessments of the scientific foundations and reasoning of the argumentation contained within each article.