Matt Berkley
@mattberkley.bsky.social
Sentientism, food policy for desired/anticipated consumption patterns, plant-based for climate, consumption behaviour, history and reporting of global goals, framing.
Pinned
Matt Berkley
@mattberkley.bsky.social
· Jan 20
A proposal for
Animal welfare including human health
Climate
Environment
Biodiversity
Economy
Governments provide free nutritional supplements (eg B12, DHA, EPA) and/or mandate fortification of foods
- to improve health and reduce cravings when people reduce/eliminate animal products from diet.
Animal welfare including human health
Climate
Environment
Biodiversity
Economy
Governments provide free nutritional supplements (eg B12, DHA, EPA) and/or mandate fortification of foods
- to improve health and reduce cravings when people reduce/eliminate animal products from diet.
Reposted by Matt Berkley
In 2014-15 the BBC received detailed complaints that it falsely claimed the UN Millennium Declaration target on children's survival, among other targets, had an easier 1990 baseline.
It continued.
No-one resigned.
web.archive.org/web/20240226...
web.archive.org/web/20240303...
It continued.
No-one resigned.
web.archive.org/web/20240226...
web.archive.org/web/20240303...
web.archive.org
November 9, 2025 at 8:19 PM
In 2014-15 the BBC received detailed complaints that it falsely claimed the UN Millennium Declaration target on children's survival, among other targets, had an easier 1990 baseline.
It continued.
No-one resigned.
web.archive.org/web/20240226...
web.archive.org/web/20240303...
It continued.
No-one resigned.
web.archive.org/web/20240226...
web.archive.org/web/20240303...
Reposted by Matt Berkley
But clearly it's unrealistic to ask people to assess in huge depth all the previous work they cite.
So we can ask what sensible rules might look like, perhaps adapted for different fields and circumstances.
So we can ask what sensible rules might look like, perhaps adapted for different fields and circumstances.
November 10, 2025 at 1:04 AM
But clearly it's unrealistic to ask people to assess in huge depth all the previous work they cite.
So we can ask what sensible rules might look like, perhaps adapted for different fields and circumstances.
So we can ask what sensible rules might look like, perhaps adapted for different fields and circumstances.
Reposted by Matt Berkley
We can ask when citation is justified, and also what is justifiable to say about the earlier work when citing it.
Should researchers note a general apparent level of reliability/unreliability within the field, or which papers they have checked for comments on post-publication peer review sites?
Should researchers note a general apparent level of reliability/unreliability within the field, or which papers they have checked for comments on post-publication peer review sites?
November 10, 2025 at 1:08 AM
We can ask when citation is justified, and also what is justifiable to say about the earlier work when citing it.
Should researchers note a general apparent level of reliability/unreliability within the field, or which papers they have checked for comments on post-publication peer review sites?
Should researchers note a general apparent level of reliability/unreliability within the field, or which papers they have checked for comments on post-publication peer review sites?
Reposted by Matt Berkley
I'm saying that suspicion of existing work is precisely what a scientific approach should include, especially in more plagued fields.
And to say that "scientists should be suspicious of existing work but the public shouldn't" would seem to me to be neither fair nor sensible.
And to say that "scientists should be suspicious of existing work but the public shouldn't" would seem to me to be neither fair nor sensible.
November 10, 2025 at 1:39 AM
I'm saying that suspicion of existing work is precisely what a scientific approach should include, especially in more plagued fields.
And to say that "scientists should be suspicious of existing work but the public shouldn't" would seem to me to be neither fair nor sensible.
And to say that "scientists should be suspicious of existing work but the public shouldn't" would seem to me to be neither fair nor sensible.
Reposted by Matt Berkley
𝗦𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀! Want to join @chrisgpackham.bsky.social in supporting the National Emergency Briefing on Climate & Nature?
🖋️ 𝙋𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙚 𝙨𝙞𝙜𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙤𝙥𝙚𝙣 𝙡𝙚𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙧 urging MPs to attend: lnkd.in/ecGDM3Ry
🖋️ 𝙋𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙚 𝙨𝙞𝙜𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙤𝙥𝙚𝙣 𝙡𝙚𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙧 urging MPs to attend: lnkd.in/ecGDM3Ry
We're delighted that tireless advocate for the natural world, @chrisgpackham.bsky.social CBE, will be opening the National Emergency Briefing in Westminster Central Hall on 27th November.
Chris speaking with @bbclaurak.bsky.social earlier👇
Please make sure your MP is attending: nebriefing.org
#NEB
Chris speaking with @bbclaurak.bsky.social earlier👇
Please make sure your MP is attending: nebriefing.org
#NEB
November 10, 2025 at 11:17 AM
𝗦𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀! Want to join @chrisgpackham.bsky.social in supporting the National Emergency Briefing on Climate & Nature?
🖋️ 𝙋𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙚 𝙨𝙞𝙜𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙤𝙥𝙚𝙣 𝙡𝙚𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙧 urging MPs to attend: lnkd.in/ecGDM3Ry
🖋️ 𝙋𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙚 𝙨𝙞𝙜𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙤𝙥𝙚𝙣 𝙡𝙚𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙧 urging MPs to attend: lnkd.in/ecGDM3Ry
"The businesses expect climate inaction to cost 15% of their annualized revenue on average – a fact that the vast majority are not disclosing to key stakeholders."
EY poll finds businesses expect climate impacts to cost 15% of revenues - yet many are still weakening targets.
This needs Government action.
But first, MPs need to understand the seriousness of the threat.
Is your MP attending the
#NationalEmergencyBriefing on 27 Nov 👉 nebriefing.org
This needs Government action.
But first, MPs need to understand the seriousness of the threat.
Is your MP attending the
#NationalEmergencyBriefing on 27 Nov 👉 nebriefing.org
Businesses foresee 15% reduction in revenues from climate inaction, EY finds - edie
Polling of hundreds of large businesses across the world, conducted by EY, has revealed that they expect climate inaction to cost 15% of their annualised revenue on average. Yet only one in three are ...
www.edie.net
November 11, 2025 at 9:02 AM
"The businesses expect climate inaction to cost 15% of their annualized revenue on average – a fact that the vast majority are not disclosing to key stakeholders."
Reposted by Matt Berkley
The Israeli army killed Gaza civilians in a free-for-all, say ...
... Israeli soldiers who served there.
... Israeli soldiers who served there.
November 10, 2025 at 9:21 AM
The Israeli army killed Gaza civilians in a free-for-all, say ...
... Israeli soldiers who served there.
... Israeli soldiers who served there.
Reposted by Matt Berkley
.@chrisgpackham.bsky.social's powerful call to all MPs & Peers to attend the National Emergency Briefing on the #climate & #nature crisis at Central Hall Westminster, from 9am 27th November.
Enter your postcode to see if your MP is attending on your behalf: www.nebriefing.org
#NEB2025 #TimeToStepUp
Enter your postcode to see if your MP is attending on your behalf: www.nebriefing.org
#NEB2025 #TimeToStepUp
November 10, 2025 at 5:45 PM
.@chrisgpackham.bsky.social's powerful call to all MPs & Peers to attend the National Emergency Briefing on the #climate & #nature crisis at Central Hall Westminster, from 9am 27th November.
Enter your postcode to see if your MP is attending on your behalf: www.nebriefing.org
#NEB2025 #TimeToStepUp
Enter your postcode to see if your MP is attending on your behalf: www.nebriefing.org
#NEB2025 #TimeToStepUp
Reposted by Matt Berkley
Is there perhaps a significant difference between
1) which news sources people trust
(which might be unknowing)
and
2) which sources they say they trust, in surveys
(which might be influenced by, say, wanting a source to look bad or to maintain a self-image of loyalty to a political outlook)?
1) which news sources people trust
(which might be unknowing)
and
2) which sources they say they trust, in surveys
(which might be influenced by, say, wanting a source to look bad or to maintain a self-image of loyalty to a political outlook)?
November 10, 2025 at 1:58 PM
Is there perhaps a significant difference between
1) which news sources people trust
(which might be unknowing)
and
2) which sources they say they trust, in surveys
(which might be influenced by, say, wanting a source to look bad or to maintain a self-image of loyalty to a political outlook)?
1) which news sources people trust
(which might be unknowing)
and
2) which sources they say they trust, in surveys
(which might be influenced by, say, wanting a source to look bad or to maintain a self-image of loyalty to a political outlook)?
Irresponsible.
FAO yet again fails to mention diet shifts & their key role:
"About 15 million deaths could be avoided each year & agricultural emissions could drop by 15% if people worldwide shift to healthier, predominantly plant-based diets" apnews.com/article/plan...
On FAO, see for instance shorturl.at/bIHBT
"About 15 million deaths could be avoided each year & agricultural emissions could drop by 15% if people worldwide shift to healthier, predominantly plant-based diets" apnews.com/article/plan...
On FAO, see for instance shorturl.at/bIHBT
Food, climate and the future - it’s all connected!
Discover 5 science-backed solutions that can help transform agrifood systems to withstand climate shocks and tackle the climate crisis.
🔗 fao.org/interactive/...
#AgrifoodSystems #COP30
Discover 5 science-backed solutions that can help transform agrifood systems to withstand climate shocks and tackle the climate crisis.
🔗 fao.org/interactive/...
#AgrifoodSystems #COP30
November 10, 2025 at 12:33 PM
Irresponsible.
Reposted by Matt Berkley
So one important task, it seems to me, is consideration of what to advise researchers to do about citing.
Obviously, take reasonable care to avoid citing claims thoughtlessly - a question is what kinds of rules/guidance might help.
Obviously, take reasonable care to avoid citing claims thoughtlessly - a question is what kinds of rules/guidance might help.
November 9, 2025 at 11:20 AM
So one important task, it seems to me, is consideration of what to advise researchers to do about citing.
Obviously, take reasonable care to avoid citing claims thoughtlessly - a question is what kinds of rules/guidance might help.
Obviously, take reasonable care to avoid citing claims thoughtlessly - a question is what kinds of rules/guidance might help.
Reposted by Matt Berkley
Let's reject the UK Government's misleading frame "Net Zero" and call it
"Territorial* Net Zero".
The fact that countries report TNZ to the UN doesn't mean the UK has to focus on what may (soon?) be only half its contributions to greenhouse gases, misleading on progress.
* or similar. Domestic?
"Territorial* Net Zero".
The fact that countries report TNZ to the UN doesn't mean the UK has to focus on what may (soon?) be only half its contributions to greenhouse gases, misleading on progress.
* or similar. Domestic?
November 8, 2025 at 10:03 AM
Let's reject the UK Government's misleading frame "Net Zero" and call it
"Territorial* Net Zero".
The fact that countries report TNZ to the UN doesn't mean the UK has to focus on what may (soon?) be only half its contributions to greenhouse gases, misleading on progress.
* or similar. Domestic?
"Territorial* Net Zero".
The fact that countries report TNZ to the UN doesn't mean the UK has to focus on what may (soon?) be only half its contributions to greenhouse gases, misleading on progress.
* or similar. Domestic?
Reposted by Matt Berkley
The Stockholm Declaration seems very good but omits a key, immediate issue:
In fields where evidence suggests a high proportion of seriously flawed papers, what should scientists and others do and say as regards trusting, citing and/or building on previous research?
bsky.app/profile/matt...
In fields where evidence suggests a high proportion of seriously flawed papers, what should scientists and others do and say as regards trusting, citing and/or building on previous research?
bsky.app/profile/matt...
So one important task, it seems to me, is consideration of what to advise researchers to do about citing.
Obviously, take reasonable care to avoid citing claims thoughtlessly - a question is what kinds of rules/guidance might help.
Obviously, take reasonable care to avoid citing claims thoughtlessly - a question is what kinds of rules/guidance might help.
November 10, 2025 at 12:57 AM
The Stockholm Declaration seems very good but omits a key, immediate issue:
In fields where evidence suggests a high proportion of seriously flawed papers, what should scientists and others do and say as regards trusting, citing and/or building on previous research?
bsky.app/profile/matt...
In fields where evidence suggests a high proportion of seriously flawed papers, what should scientists and others do and say as regards trusting, citing and/or building on previous research?
bsky.app/profile/matt...
Reposted by Matt Berkley
Bernhard Sabel writes in the Financial Times:
"Politicians and the media...should also be careful not to cast suspicion on science itself, something that could cause unforeseeable damage even greater than the status quo.
Yes, it could do that. But if 5-15% of papers are fake ...
"Politicians and the media...should also be careful not to cast suspicion on science itself, something that could cause unforeseeable damage even greater than the status quo.
Yes, it could do that. But if 5-15% of papers are fake ...
November 10, 2025 at 1:31 AM
Bernhard Sabel writes in the Financial Times:
"Politicians and the media...should also be careful not to cast suspicion on science itself, something that could cause unforeseeable damage even greater than the status quo.
Yes, it could do that. But if 5-15% of papers are fake ...
"Politicians and the media...should also be careful not to cast suspicion on science itself, something that could cause unforeseeable damage even greater than the status quo.
Yes, it could do that. But if 5-15% of papers are fake ...
In 2014-15 the BBC received detailed complaints that it falsely claimed the UN Millennium Declaration target on children's survival, among other targets, had an easier 1990 baseline.
It continued.
No-one resigned.
web.archive.org/web/20240226...
web.archive.org/web/20240303...
It continued.
No-one resigned.
web.archive.org/web/20240226...
web.archive.org/web/20240303...
web.archive.org
November 9, 2025 at 8:19 PM
In 2014-15 the BBC received detailed complaints that it falsely claimed the UN Millennium Declaration target on children's survival, among other targets, had an easier 1990 baseline.
It continued.
No-one resigned.
web.archive.org/web/20240226...
web.archive.org/web/20240303...
It continued.
No-one resigned.
web.archive.org/web/20240226...
web.archive.org/web/20240303...
Reposted by Matt Berkley
Let's say
"Cleaner energy"
and
"Cleaner technology"
except in cases where
the facts about,
and/or
the absence of needs for,
mining, processing, manufacture, transport, maintenance, heating of buildings, disposal and so on
really do justify the word "clean".
"Cleaner energy"
and
"Cleaner technology"
except in cases where
the facts about,
and/or
the absence of needs for,
mining, processing, manufacture, transport, maintenance, heating of buildings, disposal and so on
really do justify the word "clean".
November 8, 2025 at 10:47 AM
Let's say
"Cleaner energy"
and
"Cleaner technology"
except in cases where
the facts about,
and/or
the absence of needs for,
mining, processing, manufacture, transport, maintenance, heating of buildings, disposal and so on
really do justify the word "clean".
"Cleaner energy"
and
"Cleaner technology"
except in cases where
the facts about,
and/or
the absence of needs for,
mining, processing, manufacture, transport, maintenance, heating of buildings, disposal and so on
really do justify the word "clean".
Reposted by Matt Berkley
So the New York Times article is wrong on global emissions, and temperature rise rate.
A third error: its claim on projections from "current policies" is based on a source from 2024 - not Trump's policies or other backtracking by countries and corporations.
And the correction notice misleads.
A third error: its claim on projections from "current policies" is based on a source from 2024 - not Trump's policies or other backtracking by countries and corporations.
And the correction notice misleads.
November 9, 2025 at 10:59 AM
Reposted by Matt Berkley
Yes. I once wrote a systematic review of analytical choices in the study of infectious diseases in cancer care. The title mentions AMR and cancer. It is now cited 25 times, almost all citations being «AMR is a big problem in cancer care (ref)», a conclusion that cannot be inferred from what I wrote.
November 9, 2025 at 12:29 PM
Yes. I once wrote a systematic review of analytical choices in the study of infectious diseases in cancer care. The title mentions AMR and cancer. It is now cited 25 times, almost all citations being «AMR is a big problem in cancer care (ref)», a conclusion that cannot be inferred from what I wrote.
Reposted by Matt Berkley
Scence sleuths/critics tend to concentrate on the *supply* of seriously flawed papers.
I'm wondering what can be done about the demand, which could affect the supply in a good way.
Some demand for bad work comes from funders, some from citation practices.
I'm wondering what can be done about the demand, which could affect the supply in a good way.
Some demand for bad work comes from funders, some from citation practices.
November 9, 2025 at 11:02 AM
Scence sleuths/critics tend to concentrate on the *supply* of seriously flawed papers.
I'm wondering what can be done about the demand, which could affect the supply in a good way.
Some demand for bad work comes from funders, some from citation practices.
I'm wondering what can be done about the demand, which could affect the supply in a good way.
Some demand for bad work comes from funders, some from citation practices.
Reposted by Matt Berkley
I'm thinking more of a set of findings endorsed by statisticians/methodologists etc with "we are unable to find any serious flaws here, so this is worth citing" rather than examples.
November 9, 2025 at 10:48 AM
I'm thinking more of a set of findings endorsed by statisticians/methodologists etc with "we are unable to find any serious flaws here, so this is worth citing" rather than examples.
Reposted by Matt Berkley
In a field where evidence suggests that a high proportion of papers have serious flaws, a database of "potentially important" papers which appear *not* to have serious flaws might be useful, as well as identifying those that do.
November 9, 2025 at 10:36 AM
In a field where evidence suggests that a high proportion of papers have serious flaws, a database of "potentially important" papers which appear *not* to have serious flaws might be useful, as well as identifying those that do.
Reposted by Matt Berkley
So the New York Times' inferences that these are "mistakes" and so on are less plausible.
Because of the obvious pattern, I don't believe the reporters thought these were all or mostly "mistakes" and so on.
And yet the article and headlines present the inferences as fact.
Because of the obvious pattern, I don't believe the reporters thought these were all or mostly "mistakes" and so on.
And yet the article and headlines present the inferences as fact.
February 22, 2025 at 6:11 PM
So the New York Times' inferences that these are "mistakes" and so on are less plausible.
Because of the obvious pattern, I don't believe the reporters thought these were all or mostly "mistakes" and so on.
And yet the article and headlines present the inferences as fact.
Because of the obvious pattern, I don't believe the reporters thought these were all or mostly "mistakes" and so on.
And yet the article and headlines present the inferences as fact.
Reposted by Matt Berkley
The New York Times claims the "mistakes" by "DOGE" are part of a "pattern of recklessness".
In fact on their own, the misrepresentations/falsehoods from "DOGE" described in the article clearly form a pattern of exaggerating its purported achievements.
In fact on their own, the misrepresentations/falsehoods from "DOGE" described in the article clearly form a pattern of exaggerating its purported achievements.
February 22, 2025 at 5:53 PM
The New York Times claims the "mistakes" by "DOGE" are part of a "pattern of recklessness".
In fact on their own, the misrepresentations/falsehoods from "DOGE" described in the article clearly form a pattern of exaggerating its purported achievements.
In fact on their own, the misrepresentations/falsehoods from "DOGE" described in the article clearly form a pattern of exaggerating its purported achievements.
Reposted by Matt Berkley
I think we're both going in the same direction.
I agree in general, and news organisations should be getting input from lawyers to help journalists and editors.
Where there are breaking stories, it may I think be appropriate to say the writer isn't yet clear on legality.
I agree in general, and news organisations should be getting input from lawyers to help journalists and editors.
Where there are breaking stories, it may I think be appropriate to say the writer isn't yet clear on legality.
February 25, 2025 at 12:21 PM
I think we're both going in the same direction.
I agree in general, and news organisations should be getting input from lawyers to help journalists and editors.
Where there are breaking stories, it may I think be appropriate to say the writer isn't yet clear on legality.
I agree in general, and news organisations should be getting input from lawyers to help journalists and editors.
Where there are breaking stories, it may I think be appropriate to say the writer isn't yet clear on legality.
Reposted by Matt Berkley
Also emissions and other effects from the military.
October 21, 2025 at 11:56 AM
Also emissions and other effects from the military.