Antiscience Lobbyists - Topic Citations
Topic ID: 78
Every citation has two independent 0-100 scores. The source Reliability score rates the general reliability of the outlet itself, regardless of the specific claim, based on an eight-tier scale running from primary government and international scientific bodies (CDC, WHO, NASA, IPCC) at the top, through peer-reviewed journals, wire services, mainstream science journalism, and advocacy organizations, down to tertiary references like Wikipedia and unverifiable or absent sources at the bottom. The Accuracy score, by contrast, rates how well a specific citation supports topic statements — a citation from an excellent source can score low if misapplied or can score high if it precisely backs up topic statements.
Reframing Consensus as Uncertain"/"Controversial (Manufacturing Doubt Tactic)
- Wikipedia (summarizing David Michaels' research)Reliability score: 52 | Accuracy score: 88
- Wikipedia (summarizing David Michaels' research)Reliability score: 52 | Accuracy score: 88
State Laws Restricting Climate Science Education as "Controversial"
- Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law SchoolReliability score: 63 | Accuracy score: 88
- Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law SchoolReliability score: 63 | Accuracy score: 88
Laws Limiting Public-Health Agencies Emergency Authority
- Stanford Health Policy (citing Michelle Mello et al.)Reliability score: 86 | Accuracy score: 88
- Stanford Health Policy (citing Michelle Mello et al.)Reliability score: 86 | Accuracy score: 88
State Laws Restricting Climate Science Education (Independent Corroboration)
- The Texas TribuneReliability score: 80 | Accuracy score: 75
- The Texas TribuneReliability score: 80 | Accuracy score: 75
Lobbying Delaying/Diluting Pollutant Regulations Despite Evidence
- Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL)Reliability score: 63 | Accuracy score: 88
- Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL)Reliability score: 63 | Accuracy score: 88