New project has already scored the “scientific credibility” of climate science stories on CNN, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Guardian and Daily Telegraph

Scientists get tool to mark online climate science media coverage and it's not a rusty teaspoon

What kind of impulses might rush through climate scientists’ minds as they scroll through some of the gumph that gets written on climate change?

Perhaps partaking of a violent act at the expense of a computer monitor after reading how they’re only carrying on this atmospheric physics hoax to maintain the gargantuan salaries that they don’t get?

Maybe that line that we’re “heading for an ice age” might cause an outbreak of involuntary smashing of heads into desks?

Global warming is a hoax because it’s cold outside? Pass them a rusty teaspoon so they can gouge their eyes out.

Anyway, like I say. I’ve no idea.

But one growing community of scientists has a new tool at their disposal to assess the credibility of climate change stories and commentary online. And it’s not a rusty teaspoon.

Using the Climate Feedback tool, scientists have started to diligently add detailed annotations to online content and have those notes appear alongside the story as it originally appeared.

If you’re the writer, then it’s a bit like getting your homework handed back to you with the margins littered with corrections and red pen. Or smiley faces and gold stars if you’ve been good.

The scientists also give each story a grade for its “scientific credibility”.

Articles appearing on CNN, The Telegraph (UK), The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times have already been through the Climate Feedback ringer (they even had a crack at the Pope’s recent encyclical on climate change).

Some stories have come out with solid endorsements. Others, not so much.

The scientists looked at a recent story in the UK’s Daily Telegraph under the headline “Earth heading for ‘mini ice-age’ within fifteen years”.

Six climate scientists have analyzed the article and they estimate its overall scientific credibility to be ‘low’ to ‘very low’.

Ooof. Frowny face.

So far about 40 scientists have joined the Climate Feedback group from places like MIT, the University of New South Wales Climate Change Research Centre, Germany’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Harvard, the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and universities in the UK, Australia and the US.

The project is the brainchild of climate scientist Dr Emmanuel Vincent, a tropical cyclone expert at the University of California. He told me:

As a climate scientist, one of my personal motivations is the frustration I have when I read some news on climate that I know are inconsistent with science and I have no efficient way of sharing this knowledge. I wanted to develop an effective and scalable way for scientists to share what they know with readers and journalists. Also, many of my friends or colleagues –who do not have expertise in climate– are often genuinely confused by contradictory stories on climate change, for instance when one outlet says polar ice is melting and another says it isn’t. If my friends are confused, I’m sure there are plenty of others who could benefit from a thorough analysis by those knowledgeable on the topic.

Vincent says the idea came from conversations with Dan Whaley, the founder of an online platform called Hypothesis - the same tool scientists are using to annotate the online text.

So far Vincent says they’ve looked at high-profile media sites that have large digital audiences.

We stick to pieces that claim to be based on scientific evidence. We receive recommendations from our scientific community; ideally journalists will become involved in the selection process as well. We encourage scientists to stay close to their field of expertise and cite relevant sources when the subject is not their direct domain of expertise. Note that a large part of climate coverage is on broad subjects and a PhD in climate science often allows you to be expert enough on the matter. If a scientist is making authoritative comments on a field he has no expertise in, other scientists can reply to his comment.

Vincent says the scientists volunteer their time to review articles and thinks they take part because of a “moral and professional duty” to speak up when “some media are distorting important topics”.

So has the Climate Feedback site had any feedback itself from the writers they have reviewed? Not much, but there has been some.

The main exchange we got was with Bjorn Lomborg who replied to the scientists’ analysis of an op-ed he wrote for the Wall Street Journal in an article published in Forbes. In his reply, Lomborg did not address the bulk of the criticism that was made about his article: his conclusion that “most of the data on climate is actually encouraging” is unsupported by science and by his own argumentation.

So far there has been no editing of the scientific comments but Vincent says they’re thinking about bringing some editors on board.

But will it make a difference?

We want to encourage higher standards of excellence in science reporting. We know that journalists face a credibility crisis and increasing competition from an internet full of alternative sources of information. We want rigorous journalists to receive the backing of the scientific community. By the same token we want to bring journalists into contact with the broader scientific community - established researchers but also early career researchers who are at the forefront of scientific knowledge in their field but usually don’t speak in the media. We also expect the project to help readers and particularly students assess the credibility of climate change information they read online.

Vincent says Climate Feedback is funded and supported by the University of California, Merced and the Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society (CITRIS), but they have had “contributions from private donors” too.

I reckon all journalists should welcome this kind of feedback, although I’m now a little edgy that they might come after one of my stories.

Smiley face (by the way they don’t use smiley faces, but I think they should)?