Topics:
Latest in
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.
On January 18, NASA and NOAA released the data showing that 2016 was the warmest year on record in both…
“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”
“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.””
Over the past two months, Climate Feedback has asked its network of scientists to review 5 widely read articles published…
Recently, scientists analyzed some of Forbes’ most influential climate articles for 2015. While one article was rated as highly accurate,…
Climate change will be a hot topic during the 2016 presidential election campaign. The candidates have already started talking about…
A few days after Climate Feedback published an analysis of Dan Hyde’s article “Earth heading for ‘mini ice age’ within…
