Resource Watch – 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 Resource Watch a Pro-Science source based on presenting evidence-based, well-sourced data and information.

Detailed Report

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

History

According to their about page: “Resource Watch features hundreds of data sets all in one place on the state of the planet’s resources and citizens. Users can visualize challenges facing people and the planet, from climate change to poverty, water risk to state instability, air pollution to human migration, and more. Resource Watch data are curated by World Resources Institute’s independent, nonpartisan experts, drawing from the best peer-reviewed and authoritative sources.”

Read our profile on the United States government and media.

Funded by / Ownership

Resource Watch fully discloses its funding partners on the website.

Analysis / Bias

In review, there is a tremendous amount of data on the website covering sustainability. There is little emotional language, and everything is appropriately sourced to credible scientific information.

Failed Fact Checks

• None in the Last 5 years

Overall, we rate Resource Watch a Pro-Science source based on presenting evidence-based, well-sourced data and information. (D. Van Zandt 4/11/2018) Updated (01/26/2022)

Source: https://resourcewatch.org/