Last reviewed September 2, 2026
Krigsvold publishes interpretation, not original scientific research. Its job is to make established evidence understandable without making it look more certain, more current, or more comprehensive than it is.
Source hierarchy
Briefings prefer, in order:
- direct observations and datasets from the scientific institution responsible for them;
- peer-reviewed research articles;
- assessments from bodies such as the IPCC and the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research; and
- explanatory material from national Antarctic programs and public science agencies.
Secondary reporting may help identify a subject, but a central factual claim should lead readers to the underlying research or responsible institution.
How claims are written
Observed change, modeled projection, and policy judgment are identified as different things. Measurements include a period. Species status names the listing authority. Estimates retain words such as “about” when precision would be false.
Each briefing carries a review date. Review means that its central claims and links were checked on that date; it does not mean that every cited dataset was released then.
Corrections
Minor typographical fixes are made in place. Corrections that change the meaning of a scientific, programmatic, or institutional claim are logged on the Corrections page with the date and substance of the change.
Questions about a source or correction can be sent to count@krigsvold.org.