The Boston GlobeBlanket claim that climate models are flawed dismisses their key role
Following Climate Feedback’s analysis, The Boston Globe invited us to write a short letter to the editor responding to Jacoby’s column. “As The Boston Globe’s Twitter account claims, #FactsMatter. To gain correct scientific understanding of how the world works, sound logic is also required.”
The GuardianThis is why conservative media outlets like the Daily Mail are ‘unreliable’
“This past November, Rose tried to blame the record-shattering hot global temperatures of 2016 on El Niño in a piece that the climate scientists at "Climate Feedback gave a “very low” scientific credibility score of -1.9. The lowest possible score is -2.0. The scientists described Rose’s article as “incredibly misleading,” “flawed to perfection,” “deceptive,” and “completely bogus.” One expressed dismay that they couldn’t rate its credibility worse than “very low.””
Real ClimateFake news, hacked mail, alternative facts – that’s old hat for climate scientists
"What we should do […] Gather the views of independent experts. A very useful initiative in this regard is Climate Feedback, which solicits and publishes comments from a whole range of scientists about media articles on climate.”
Inside Climate NewsHouse Science Committee Hearing Renews Battle of Science Vs. Denial
"The article, written by David Rose, has been roundly criticized by climate scientists, diplomats, and others, who have pointed out a number of flaws and errors.”
Computer WorldWhy fake news is a tech problem
"The beauty of this approach is that each article is judged independently (instead of branding an entire publication as "bad"). [...] Better still, the site essentially teaches media criticism and skepticism from a scientific point of view."
ForbesClimate Scientists Launch Brainy Attack On Inaccurate News
“[Climate feedback] website's purpose goes beyond fact checking, because there are other forms of misleading information, such as cherry-picked half truths, biased information, rhetorical manipulation, and ill-defined terms.”
NatureTake the time and effort to correct misinformation
"the scientific process doesn’t stop when results are published in a peer-reviewed journal. Wider communication is also involved, and that includes ensuring not only that information (including uncertainties) is understood, but also that misinformation and errors are corrected where necessary."
The Washington PostIt’s likely Earth’s hottest year on record — and some people are talking about global cooling
"Climate scientists, in turn, have been highly critical — a band of them just extensively challenged the original Mail on Sunday article at the website Climate Feedback, where they “estimated its overall scientific credibility to be ‘very low.’”
The GuardianFake news tries to blame human-caused global warming on El Niño
"For Climate Feedback, seven scientists graded David Rose’s piece, and gave it a “very low” credibility score of -1.9 (the lowest possible score is -2.0). The scientists described Rose’s article as “incredibly misleading,” “flawed to perfection,” and “completely bogus.””
Poynter InstituteWhen it comes to fact-checking, why do politicians get all the attention?
"...what if journalists are just thinking too narrowly about what makes a good fact check? For example, the website Climate Feedback uses line-by-line annotation to critique climate-related articles in the media — effectively fact-checking many statements at once. [...] “Any story like that that takes an issue, not necessarily a statement but an issue, that people are wondering about or don’t understand, and goes into the deep background of ‘why this is happening,’ that has all the hallmarks of a fact check, and that’s what we want to see more of,”"