Could a Rating System Help Weigh Claims Made in Popular Science Books? (2019)

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) produces impressive summaries for policymakers in which explain alongside every claim the corresponding level of confidence, the quantity of evidence available, and the level of agreement between studies/scientists. For example:

> Risks of global aggregate impacts are moderate for additional warming between 1–2°C, reflecting impacts to both Earth’s biodiversity and the overall global economy (medium confidence). Extensive biodiversity loss with associated loss of ecosystem goods and services results in high risks around 3°C additional warming (high confidence). Aggregate economic damages accelerate with increasing temperature (limited evidence, high agreement), but few quantitative estimates have been completed for additional warming around 3°C or above. [0]

I've always wished more scientific (or pop science) writing followed this approach.

[0]: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ar5_wgII_spm...

Could a rating system help weight claims made in popular HN submissions?