RealClimate – Bias and Credibility

These sources consist of legitimate science or are evidence-based through the use of 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 RealClimate as a highly credible Pro-Science source for information on climate change.

Detailed Report

Bias Rating: PRO-SCIENCE
Factual Reporting: VERY HIGH
Country: USA
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

History

Launched in 2004 and according to their about page, RealClimate is a “commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists.” They state their purpose is “to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary.”

Read our profile on the United States government and media.

Funded by / Ownership

RealClimate does not disclose ownership as it appears this is a blog that 5 climate scientists publish. The sale of books generates revenue.

Analysis / Bias

According to Time, RealClimate is “in line with the Web’s original purpose: scientific communication” with a “straightforward presentation of the physical evidence for global warming.” Articles and headlines are low biased and evidence-based, such as this A deep dive into the IPCC’s updated carbon budget numbers. In general, they are highly factual and pro-science.

Failed Fact Checks

• None in the Last 5 years

Overall, we rate RealClimate as a highly credible Pro-Science source for information on climate change. (M. Huitsing 8/31/2017) Updated (09/08/2023)

Source: http://www.realclimate.org/