Latest in

Insights

Filter by

Topic

Topic
  • Health (26)
  • Energy (3)
  • Climate (35)

date

Date range
  • CNN airs misleading climate claims in interview

    “Dr. Happer’s assertion that models show 2x to 3x greater warming than observations is incorrect. At the surface (where we all live) models predict a rate of warming of 0.2 °C per decade since 1970, while NASA observes warming of around 0.18 °C during the same period.”

  • Scientists reactions to the US House Science Committee hearing on climate science

    Only four witnesses were invited to testify before the committee, which cannot be representative of all the expertise required to understand a field as vast as climate science. So we have asked for additional scientists to weigh in on some noteworthy, scientifically verifiable statements made during the hearing to provide a broader and more representative view of the state of scientific knowledge.

  • The Daily Wire corrects story analyzed by scientists, but it's still misleading

    While the most inaccurate statements have been edited, the scientists who reviewed the post indicate that the implication that the study undercuts confidence in the human cause of modern climate change is still misleading. The research being described doesn’t relate to recent climate history. It relates to differences that existed about 90 million years ago in well-known cycles in Earth’s orbit.

  • Sensational claims of manipulated data in the Mail on Sunday are overblown

    “The “astonishing evidence” that David Rose purports to reveal in no way changes our understanding of modern warming or our best estimates of recent rates of warming. It does not in any way change the evidence that policymakers have at their disposal when deciding how to address the threats posed by climate change.”

  • IPSO decision ignores inaccuracies in The Spectator’s article on ocean acidification

    The article contains objectively inaccurate assertions on matters of fact—not opinion—and therefore does not meet the accuracy standards of IPSO’s Editors’ Code. By excusing articles like this one from following its standards, IPSO risks its credibility as an effective guardian of accountability for science journalism.

  • How to make sure a Q&A with a scientist doesn’t misrepresent science

    “When interviewing scientists, journalists need to make it clear to readers whether the resulting article is based on opinion or science. It is not sufficient to assume that an interview with an individual scientist will result in a science-based article”

  • When a sensational headline contradicts an article's message

    “Sarah Knapton has written a reasonably well-balanced article, however, this article was placed under a misleading headline. The headline could just as easily have been: “Experts said that simplistic extrapolations of sea ice loss had little predictive value—and they were right.””