Climate Feedback – Bias and Credibility

These sources consist of legitimate science or are evidence based through credible scientific sourcing.  Legitimate science follows the scientific method, is unbiased, and does not use emotional words.  These sources also respect the consensus of experts in the given scientific field and strive to publish peer-reviewed science. Some sources in this category may have a slight political bias but adhere to scientific principles. See all Pro-Science sources.

• Overall, we rate Climate Feedback a pro-science fact-checker based on utilizing scientific evidence to refute claims. We also rate them Very High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and the use of expert Ph.D. level scientists to fact-check claims.

Detailed Report

Bias Rating: PRO-SCIENCE
Factual Reporting: VERY HIGH
Country: France
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Organization/Foundation
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

History

Founded in 2015, Climate Feedback is a fact-checking website that distinguishes inaccurate climate change narratives from scientifically sound and trustworthy information in the media. They also provide feedback to editors about the credibility of information published in their outlets. Each reviewer holds a Ph.D. and has recently published articles in top-tier peer-reviewed science journals.

Climate Feedback is a project of the Science Feedback non-profit organization, which is annually certified by the International Fact-Checking Network.

Read our profile on France’s Media and Government.

Funded by / Ownership

Climate Feedback is owned and published by Science Feedback, a not-for-profit organization verifying the credibility of influential claims and media coverage that claims to be scientific, starting with the topics of climate and health. Revenue is derived through donations.

Analysis / Bias

In review, the website asks climate scientists in relevant fields to assess the credibility and accuracy of media stories related to climate change. Fact checks are broken up into two categories. The first is “Article Reviews,” which fact-checks stories written by media publications. The second is “Claim Reviews,” which evaluates claims by individuals, social media, and sources. The article reviews rate stories on their scientific credibility with a scale that ranges from -2 (very low) to +2 (very high). For example, this story by The Sun, Article in The Sun, misrepresents Antarctic discovery and misplaces it on map is scored -1 (low scientific credibility).

Claim reviews are graded on a scale that ranges from Correct to Inaccurate. For example, this claim by the American Thinker, “Sea level rise has been slow and a constant, pre-dating industrialization,” is rated as Inaccurate. Each fact check is reviewed by multiple scientists within the climate science field. In general, Climate Feedback displays minimal bias and stays focused on science.

Since Covid-19, Health Feedback has routinely debunked misinformation regarding both Covid and vaccines.

Failed Fact Checks

• None. They are a part of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN).

Overall, we rate Climate Feedback a pro-science fact-checker based on utilizing scientific evidence to refute claims. We also rate them Very High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and the use of expert Ph.D. level scientists to fact-check claims. (D. Van Zandt 3/6/2017) Updated (02/02/2024)

Source: https://climatefeedback.org/