Article Reviews
“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]
Story on congressman’s incorrect claims about sea level rise could have corrected them more explicitly
in Science Magazine, E&E News, by Scott Waldman
"The comments from the members of the Committee suffer from severe inaccuracies and misconceptions, and citations of the invited climate scientist mostly address those issues. In general, the views that go against our understanding of the climate change process are underlined and presented as such by the author, but rarely supported by statements or explanations that go beyond the immediate replies from the invited climate scientist. Some of the inaccurate statements quoted in the text are thus left with an incomplete challenge."
— 22 Jan 2019
BBC article on IPCC report is mostly accurate, but could use some clarification
in BBC, by Matt McGrath
"Scientifically, the article is overall correct, but it is in cases inaccurate in its description of certain aspects of the IPCC. For example, the IPCC does not conduct research, but assesses the available scientific evidence. The article also provides statements without context, despite this being essential for their interpretation."
— 21 Jan 2019
CNN accurately covers latest IPCC report
in CNN, by Brandon Miller
This CNN story covered the October release of the IPCC's "Global Warming of 1.5 °C" report. The report, which was requested by governments during the 2015 Paris Agreement negotiations, details the impacts of 1.5 °C compared to 2 °C and the emissions cuts required to limit warming to either of those levels. Scientists who reviewed the story found that it conveyed the information in the report without any errors, and included comments by scientists to summarize the report's implications.
— 19 Jan 2019
New Scientist article accurately summarises polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) research but overstates significance of animal studies
in New Scientist, by Alice Klein
"I think that the title overstates the position with the present level of knowledge and is too sensationalist. The ‘ovarian cysts’ stated to typically characterize PCOS are not cysts but follicles and this may be misleading. On the positive side, the quotes from Professor Robert Norman are spot on and accurately quoted (see Annotations below)."
— 17 Jan 2019
USA Today story updates readers on trend in monthly global temperatures
in USA Today, by Doyle Rice
"The piece accurately reports the surface temperature record warming of recent decades and joins the dots appropriately to the underlying cause of human emissions. It appropriately draws the distinction between regional/national records and the global mean behaviour. The included quotes are to authoritative sources."
— 14 Jan 2019
Washington Post article accurately discusses warm Arctic weather event
in The Washington Post, by Jason Samenow
"This article accurately describes the Arctic warming event and associated surprise by scientists, includes multiple explanations for possible causes, and does not overstate any connections to climate change, pointing out that more data is needed to know if these above-freezing events will be a new Arctic normal."
— 14 Jan 2019
Research showing benefits of exercise on ageing immune system correctly reported by Time
in Time, by Alexandra Sifferlin
"The overall message of the article is a fair reflection of current scientific opinion that being physically active regularly throughout life most likely promotes healthy ageing of the immune system. However, it is very unlikely that being regularly active prevents ageing of the immune system, although it may slow or limit some of the negative effects."
— 11 Jan 2019
Time article on bone marrow transplant trial for multiple sclerosis treatment mostly accurate but needs more important details and context
in Time, by Alice Park
"The article contains some inaccuracies and simplifications, but is overall accurate. It is not clear which article and whose scientific data it refers to. Such information should be mentioned in the article. The type of stem cells that were used for the procedure is also unclear. Immune system renewal after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation has actually been demonstrated a long time ago..."
— 07 Jan 2019
Popular “Friends of Science” video promoted by Youtube presents long list of climate myths
in Friends of Science, YouTube, by Steve Goreham
"The video presents a litany of the usual climate denier talking points, none of which hold any water. It is full of outright false claims and does not even shy away from presenting a fake TIME magazine cover that supposedly warned of an ice age. “Friends of Science” is an advocacy group “largely funded by the fossil fuel industry”"
— 21 Dec 2018
2018’s most popular health article promoting cannabis’ safety found to be biased and misleading
in urhealthguide, by John Regan
“The article fails to point out that only very limited, low-quality evidence supports the use of cannabis for treating chronic pain. The article also fails to describe the potential harms of cannabis. Although it does not cause fatal overdose, it does cause intoxication and impairment, and driving under the influence is dangerous. Also, both acute and chronic use of cannabis cause cognitive impairment which can interfere with an individual's safety and productivity.”
— 20 Dec 2018
[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.