Media Bias/Fact Check .org
---
---
Climate Change Dispatch – Bias and Credibility 
---
_CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE_
Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information; therefore, fact-checking and further investigation are recommended on a per-article basis when obtaining information from these sources.See all Conspiracy-Pseudoscience sources.
Overall, we rate Climate Change Dispatch as a Conspiracy and Quackery level Pseudoscience source for the promotion of false or misleading information that is not in line with the consensus of science and several failed fact checks.
:{:{_Detailed Report}:
Bias Rating: CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE
Factual Reporting: LOWCountry: USAMBFC’s Country Freedom Rank:MOSTLY FREEMedia Type: WebsiteTraffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
*History
Founded in 2010, Climate Change Dispatch is a human-influenced climate change denial blog managed and edited by Thomas Richard. According to their about page: “Climate Change Dispatch (CCD) is a science and environmental news site showing its visitors the facts behind the theory of global warming, which are not being told by the mainstream media and the global-warming zealots. As noted below*, we do not believe in consensus science. Beliefs belong in church, in prayers, but not in the scientific method.”
Read our profile on USA media and government.
*Funded by / Ownership
The owner and editor of Climate Change Dispatch are Thomas Richard. According to the Climate Change Dispatch about page, they are “100% owned and operated by private citizens, doing it part-time and/or for free. We do not receive any money from oil or energy companies or from ANY organization that receives money from the energy industry.” The website contains advertising and a donation link.
*Analysis / Bias
In review, Climate Change Dispatch is very honest in that they claim they do not support the consensus of science and deny the impact of human-made global warming (AWG). Articles contain loaded emotional language such as this: Election Slaughter For Climate Activism. This story is a republishing of James Taylor’s article written for the right biased and factually mixed American Thinker.
In general, most content on this website is republished articles from other right-biased sources that question climate change. There is some original content published as well that also works to minimize concern over climate change. This source also promotes conspiracies, such as Oxford University publishing fake news. Essentially, this is a website that promotes anti-climate change propaganda.
Failed Fact Checks
- “Most extreme weather phenomena have not become more extreme, more deadly, or more destructive” – False
Overall, we rate Climate Change Dispatch as a Conspiracy and Quackery level Pseudoscience source for the promotion of false or misleading information that is not in line with the consensus of science and several failed fact checks. (D. Van Zandt 11/20/2018) Updated (02/02/2024)
Source: https://climatechangedispatch.com
Last Updated on February 2, 2024 by Media Bias Fact Check
---
‘Media Bias/Fact Check’ Site Served With Cease And Desist, Gets Fact-Checked
:{:{:{[March 13, 2020,}:
Editor’s note: Our site has also come under attack by this dubious, phony fact-checking website, which forced me to correct them on our About Us page.
I’m delighted that someone is finally taking action on them in the courts.
* * * * *
The discredited, self-styled ‘fact-checker’ website was served with a ‘cease-and-desist’ legal notice today for publishing unsubstantiated and defamatory claims against Principia Scientific International (PSI).
MEDIA BIAS/FACT CHECK site owner admits he is unqualified and misrepresented himself as a seasoned journalist.
According to MEDIA BIAS/FACT CHECK, Principia Scientific International CIC is:
“CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These […]”
So, who is fact-checking the ‘fact-checkers’?
Today, PSI has issued Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) site owner, Dave Van Zandt with a pre-action legal notice to take down the defamatory and false smear.
Ironically, the self-styled ‘MEDIA BIAS/FACT CHECK‘ (MB/FC) which negatively fact-checked PSI admits it relies on subjective bias to decide how biased others are. In other words, MB/FC is a pseudoscientific fact checker!
Apart from unlawfully smearing PSI, Mr. Van Zandt has smeared other websites that publish scientific articles critical of man-made global warming claims. Among the unfairly smeared are:
- Climate Change Dispatch
- CFACT
- WUWT (Watts Up With That?)
Below we help readers to fact-check the pseudo-fact-checker. We put Dave Van Zandt the faceless fact-checker under the microscope and discovered the following:
- Van Zandt Cites No Scientific Qualifications At All
- Van Zandt Was Exposed By WND As A Fraud And A Liar
- Van Zandt’s Website (MBFC) Does Not Apply Any Objective Scientific Method
- MBFC Relies On Unverifiable Subjectivity (Own Bias) To Make Judgments
In a 2017 WND Exclusive ‘Phony baloney: The 9 fakest fake-news checkers’, Chelsea Schilling uncovered that Van Zandt was a seasoned systemic faker. She wrote:
“WND was unable to locate a single article with Van Zandt’s byline. Ironically, the “fact checker” fails to establish his own credibility by disclosing his qualifications and training in evaluating news sources.
Asked for information concerning his expertise in the field of journalism and evaluating news sources, Van Zandt told WND: “I am not a journalist and just a person who is interested in how media bias impacts politics. You will find zero claims of expertise on the website.”
Concerning his purported “25+ years” of experience writing for print and web media, he said: “I am not sure why the 25+ years is still on the website.”
With the increasing scourge of fake news reports, especially on matters of wider scientific interest, Principia Scientific International (PSI) has become a recognized source of highly qualified scientific opinion.
That scoundrels like Mr. Van Zandt get much traction with his bogus ‘fact-checking’ website is a testimony to the need for more diligence and pushback from honest scientists, other journalists, and citizens sickened by endless scientific fraud and misinformation.
Below we share with readers the take-down letter issued today to Mr. Van Zandt:
Mr Dave Van Zandt
Media Bias/Fact Check
Greensboro, NC
Dear Mr Dave Van Zandt,
Re: Notice to Cease & Desist Libelous Conduct
Please accept this communication as a Cease and Desist Notice prior to legal action under 28 U.S. Code § 4101(1).
It has been drawn to our attention that your business, MEDIA BIAS FACT CHECK is libeling our business, Principia Scientific International(PSI) by posting the following (recorded on March 13, 2020)
On your site at: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/ you state:
“*Conspiracy/Pseudoscience
The Conspiracy/Pseudoscience designation is reserved for sources that publish unverifiable information that relates to known conspiracies such as the New World Order, Illuminati, False Flags, Aliens, etc. Pseudoscience is determined by publishing unverified health and scientific claims. In order to be classified in this group the central theme of the source must revolve around conspiracies or pseudoscience.”*
*On the same webpage you add the following disclaimer:
“Disclaimer:The methodology used by Media Bias Fact Check is our own. It is not a tested scientific method. It is meant as a simple guide for people to get an idea of a source’s bias. Media Bias Fact Check will always review and change any factual errors when brought to our attention. We make every effort to be as factual as possible. Our goal is to have MBFC rated as least biased by our own criteria.”*
According to Merriam-Webster online dictionary the term ‘pseudoscience’ is defined as: “a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific.”
*You thus taint our scientific organisation as unscientific – a palpable lie provable in a court of law.
It is our belief you have made the above published statement with intention of causing damage to the reputation of our legally regulated UK non-profit scientific association which is scrupulously regulated under law as a community interest company (CiC).
By law a CIC is prohibited from political bias i.e. it cannot advocate for any political point of view. To engage in such action would render us likely to be struck off the register or be prosecuted.
Contrary to the false impression you give your readers, we are an international body of 5,500+ members, many of whom are credentialed science professionals, engineers and STEM academics, including award-winning scientists, government experts, etc.
Our published work is not pseudoscience but premised on established scientific methods. A select list of some of our distinguished member is here: A Selection Of Member Biographies. [1]
In conclusion, not only do you admit your own methodology is unscientific, but because you also fail to cite which specific PSI posts are pseudoscience, you condemn all our members, which compounds your own bias.
As per 28 U.S. Code § 4101(1) we regard the words below civilly actionable and demand removal of them within 28 days:
“CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These […]”*
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/?s=principia+scientific+international
If you persist in maintaining this false assertion against us to jeopardize our legal standing, I hereby require you to provide substantiation of your accusation. You may do so by providing us a selection of hyperlinks from published material on our website(s) which you claim are ‘conspiracy-pseudoscience.’
Such evidence may then be considered for submission to a court of law for adjudication of the veracity of your claims.
If you are unwilling/unable to provide us the evidence you rely on to make your claims then you are hereby required to remove your false statement.
[1] https://principia-scientific.org/why-psi-is-proposed-as-a-cic/
I await your reply.
Sincerely,
John O’Sullivan CEO
Kudos to PSI!
Updated Oct 13, 2023, with updated links.
---
---
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Check
Media Bias/Fact Check* (MBFC) is a website that rates factual accuracy and political bias in news media. The site classifies media sources on a political bias spectrum, as well as on the accuracy of their factual reporting. The site is run by founder and editor Dave Van Zandt.[1]
The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst."[2] The Poynter Institute notes, "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."[3]
The site has been used by researchers at the University of Michigan to create a tool called the "Iffy Quotient", which draws data from Media Bias/Fact Check and NewsWhip to track the prevalence of 'fake news' and questionable sources on social media.[4][5] The site was also used by a research group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in initial training of an AI to fact check and detect the bias on a website.[6][7]
Contents
- :{:{1:(style="color:#222222ff"):}:Methodology}:
- :{:{2:(style="color:#222222ff"):}:See also}:
- :{:{3:(style="color:#222222ff"):}:References}:
- :{:{4:(style="color:#222222ff"):}:External links}:
Methodology
Sites are rated on a 0-10 scale by Van Zandt and his team using categories such as biased wording and headlines, factuality and sourcing, and story choices.[2]
See also
References
- ^ ^Jump up to:^a^ ^b^ "About". Media Bias/Fact Check. Retrieved 2019-03-30.
- ^ ^Jump up to:^a^ ^b^ "We can probably measure media bias. But do we want to?". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved 2018-12-03.
- "Here's what to expect from fact-checking in 2019". Poynter.org. 2018-12-18. Retrieved 2018-12-30.
- Dian Schaffhauser. "U-M Tracker Measures Reliability of News on Facebook, Twitter -- Campus Technology". Campus Technology. Retrieved 2018-12-03.
- Paul Resnick; Aviv Ovadya; Garlin Gilchrist. "Iffy Quotient: A Platform Health Metric for Misinformation"(PDF). School of Information - Center for Social Media Responsibility. University of Michigan. p. 5.
- Verger, Rob (2018-10-04). "This AI can help spot biased websites and false news". Popular Science. Retrieved 2019-01-01.
- Ramy Baly; Georgi Karadzhov; Dimitar Alexandrov; James Glass; Preslav Nakov (2018). "Predicting Factuality of Reporting and Bias of News Media Sources". Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Brussels, Belgium: Association for Computational Linguistics. pp. 3528–3539.
External links
- Fact-checking websites
- Internet properties established in the 2010s
- Criticism of journalism
- Media bias
:{===
GGL 11 25
[### About
Media Bias/Fact Check
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com › about](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/about/)
Apr 10, 2025 — Founded in 2015, Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) is an independent website that has promoted awareness of media bias and misinformation.
[### Dave Van Zandt - Media Bias Fact Check, LLC
LinkedIn · Dave Van Zandt
20+ followers](https://www.linkedin.com/in/dave-van-zandt-09421b169)
Owner/Editor at Media Bias Fact Check, LLC · Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC News), founded in 2015, is an independent online media outlet.
[### Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC)
InfluenceWatch
https://www.influencewatch.org › for-profit › media-bi...](https://www.influencewatch.org/for-profit/media-bias-fact-check-mbfc/)
According to Media Bias Fact Check, Van Zandt lives in North Carolina, previously earned a communications degree, and works within the healthcare industry. He ...