Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Is factually unbiased?
1. Summary of the results
The question of factual bias must be examined in the context of climate change science and denial. The scientific consensus is overwhelmingly clear, with over 97% of climate scientists agreeing that human-caused climate change is real [1], and this consensus has strengthened to over 99% in recent studies [2]. NASA data confirms that the nine most recent years have been the hottest on record [3].
2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints
Several important contextual elements need to be considered:
- Approximately 14.8% of Americans still deny climate change, with denial strongly correlated to political affiliation and education level [4]
- Climate change denial employs specific tactics including creating doubt and using rhetorical devices to spread misinformation [5]
- Scientists are increasingly called upon to actively participate in science communication to address denial [6]
- There is concrete evidence of human activities causing climate change through:
- Fossil fuel combustion
- Cement production
- Deforestation [2]
3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement
The concept of "factually unbiased" itself needs examination:
- Organizations like FactCheck.org demonstrate what true factual unbiased reporting looks like, with:
- A Least Biased rating (-0.1)
- Very High Factual Reporting (0.0)
- Transparent funding
- Equal scrutiny of both Republican and Democratic claims [7]
When discussing climate change specifically, it's crucial to note that financial interests play a significant role:
- Fossil fuel industries benefit from climate change denial
- Scientific organizations and researchers benefit from research funding
- Political entities benefit from either supporting or denying climate change depending on their constituency
The scientific consensus is so strong that presenting "both sides" as equally valid would itself constitute a form of bias, as there is no alternative explanation supported by convincing evidence [3].