Plans to generate a crowd-funding campaign to help silence dissent on news articles.
I’ve received this from two independent sources, which is said to be from a mailing list being circulated, and I believe it to be genuine. Climate Feedback is a website that rates news stories on climate on their “factuality”, but it has one major flaw: it is entirely one-sided, biased, and without checks or balances. You have to apply, and they decide if you get into the club or not. Of course, skeptical scientists need not apply based on their mission statement. They say:
Today’s media climate leads to confusion
With so much information available online, trying to figure out which information is credible — and what is not — is a real challenge. When so much of what we read falls outside of our own expertise, how can we know which headlines and news articles are consistent with science?
Yet they are the ones who decide what is credible under the guise of “peer review”. It has become abundantly clear that “peer review” is severely broken and biased, especially in the microcosm of climate due this one-minded consensus. The efforts of “Climate Feedback” amounts to little more than an organized consensus used to suppress alternate viewpoints and ideas about climate. Their list of people who get to do the reviewing makes Shukla’s RICO 20 look like a small time amateur operation.
Below is the leaked email contents. The fact that they put Mann and Oreskes, who are prone to hateful and irrational outbursts on social media, front and center, says a lot about their viewpoint and biases.
Climate Feedback works like this: Using the new web-annotation platform Hypothesis, scientists verify facts and annotate online climate articles, layering their insights and comments on top of the original story. They then issue a “5-star” rating so readers can quickly judge stories’ scientific credibility. Recognized by NASA, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and California Gov. Jerry Brown among others, Climate Feedback is already improving journalistic standards by flagging misreported climate science in mainstream outlets; earlier this month, for example, scientists took apart Bjorn Lomborg’s misleading op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. This is only a hint of what Climate Feedback has in store as it begins to aggregate those credibility scores into a wider index, rating major news sources on their reporting of climate change as part of a new Scientific Trust Tracker.
To that end, Climate Feedback is launching a crowd funding campaign on April 27 around the hashtag #StandWithScience, supported by leading climate minds like Profs. Michael Mann, Naomi Oreskes and others. I invite you to take a look at this sneak preview of our campaign (NOTE: please do not share publicly before April 27). The Exxon climate scandal has already made its way into the 2016 election season, but few have discussed the role the media has played enabling corporate interests to sow doubt about the science of climate change, which has long confused the public and undermined political support for dealing with the issue. As 350.org founder Bill McKibben said of Climate Feedback: Scientists are just about ready to come out of the lab and get more active and when they do, it will make a remarkable difference.
Note: within 5 minutes of publication, this post was edited to correct a redundant word and a missing word, along with a formatting error.