This one was wrong in the reference transcript, where it was "dimes video surveys"

Good example with capitalization.

This information definitely changed my opinions and views of Wikipedia. I feel like all throughout high school I was taught that Wikipedia was not a scholarly source so I always avoided looking on there because I didn't think it was accurate but reading the results of this study and the article attached about this study has changed my views of Wikipedia.

.

Pagel, C., & Yates, C. A. (2021). Tackling the pandemic with (biased) data. Science, 374(6566), 403–404. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abi6602

Overall scientific credibility: 'high' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis

This is such an important point. Donald Trump did such an excellent job speaking at a level a lay person could understand when downplaying the seriousness of the Covid-19 virus thus undermining the scientific and medical community voices, that many Americans are refusing to vaccinate. This puts the world at risk for future variants that might be much worse than the ones we have now. More academics simplifying knowledge will help stem the tide of fake news, political propaganda and truly harmful misinformation.

Overall scientific credibility: 'high' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis

OC. (2021, January 22). Leadership. One of the most important and non-trivial steps taken by @JoeBiden is the decision to prioritize the protection of those at the highest risk. In Israel, our analysis shows that municipalities at low SES have the lowest rates of vaccination of at-risk populations.1/4 https://t.co/1aiqymQlMQ [Tweet]. @MDCaspi. https://twitter.com/MDCaspi/status/1352590064900038662

Overall scientific credibility: 'very high', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Health Feedback's analysis

Tasnim, S., Hossain, M. M., & Mazumder, H. (2020). Impact of rumors or misinformation on coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in social media [Preprint]. SocArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/uf3zn

Overall scientific credibility: 'neutral' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'neutral' to 'high', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Health Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very high' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'high', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Health Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'high', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Health Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'high', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Health Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'high' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very high' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'high' to 'very high' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'high' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'high', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very high', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very high', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'neutral' to 'high', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Health Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'high', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'high' to 'very high', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Health Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'high', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'neutral' to 'high', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'high', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very high', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'high' to 'very high', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'high', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'high', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very high', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very high', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very high', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very high', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'neutral', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'debated', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'high', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very high', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'high', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'high', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very high', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very high', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'high' to 'very high', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'high', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'high', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'high', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'high', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'high' to 'very high', according to 9 scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'neutral', according to 3 scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very high', according to 5 scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'high', according to 4 scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'high', according to 6 scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'high' to 'very high', according to 8 scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very high', according to 4 scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'high', according to 3 scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very high' to 'high', according to 5 scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the reply+annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very high', according to 6 scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'high', according to 3 scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'high', according to 5 scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very high', according to 12 scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'high' to 'very high', according to 5 scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very high', according to 5 scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Correct http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272771408003405

Correct, per official figure found below.

Again, confirmed by scientists responsible for the study. http://theconversation.com/how-much-coral-has-died-in-the-great-barrier-reefs-worst-bleaching-event-69494

Actually, this is an underestimate as the "25% of the worst affected reefs (the top quartile), losses of corals ranged from 83-99%." http://theconversation.com/how-much-coral-has-died-in-the-great-barrier-reefs-worst-bleaching-event-69494

The best reference for most of this paper is the 29 Nov. story posted on "The Conversation". Written by the scientists responsible for the work at James Cook University and co-authored by a high-ranking official of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, this article contains the most comprehensive summary to date. http://theconversation.com/how-much-coral-has-died-in-the-great-barrier-reefs-worst-bleaching-event-69494

In general, Doyle Rice got this one almost completely right, with one of my two quibbles being in one of his experts' quote -- something Mr. Rice has to take at face value.

It is unfortunate, however, that Mr. Rice didn't put this in the context of the global coral bleaching event that is still underway -- currently hitting hardest in Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. http://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/vs/gauges/eastern_fsm.php

Overall scientific credibility: 'very high', according to 7 scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very high', according to 12 scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'high', according to the 7 scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'high', according to the 8 scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very high' to 'high', according to the 10 scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'neutral' to 'high', according to the 8 scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'high', according to 6 scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the reply+annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very high' to 'high', according to 7 scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the reply+annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'neutral', according to 6 scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the reply+annotations below and in Biotech Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very high' to 'high', according to 7 scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the reply+annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very high', according to 8 scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the reply+annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very high', according to 8 scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the reply+annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'high'/'very high', according to 5 scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the reply+annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'high', according to 6 scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the reply+annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'high', according to 6 scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the reply+annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'high', according to the 9 climate scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the reply+annotations below and in ClimateFeedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'high' to 'very high', according to 8 climate scientists who evaluated this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and here

jgdwyer:

This article accurately describes global warming and puts the news that 2014 is the hottest year on record into appropriate context. The article does a very good job of distinguishing between climate variability and climate change with helpful discussion on ENSO and the relatively cold temperatures in the Eastern United States (while staying within the bounds of the mainstream climate science understanding).

karmour:

Very good article overall. I do wish the author had fact checked the incorrect claim by Dr. Christy (that global temperatures have not changed since the end of the 20th century) prior to including his quote in the article.

aklocker:

Scientifically this article seems to be correct but it could be a bit more precise in some of its statements. One thing I like is that it mentions different opinions on some points where scientists do not agree rather than giving a biased story.

bmv:

This article does a good job of putting the 2014 temperature record in context with quotes from experts and good descriptions of relevant issues such as El Nino. References to "skeptics" were appropriately followed up by evidence of their misinterpretation/mischaracterization of the data.

aalpert:

This article provides an accurate and well supported evaluation of the finding that 2014 was the hottest year on record.

emvincent:

Overall, this article is fair in its representation of the 2014 temperature record event and in reminding the context of the long-term warming trend+natural climate variability.

alexis.tantet:

The quality of this article is overall higher than most newspaper articles on climate change as it avoids the usual pitfalls such as confusing year to year variability with long-term change. It also addresses issues prone to confusion, such as why eastern USA did not experience such a warm year as most of the globe, which can help the readers to put the science in perspective with the seasonal climate they have actually experienced. The fact that the article focuses mostly on the observational record and not on theoretical or modeling studies may be a weakness, but the scope of an article cannot be too broad.