C0352
Ang Claim
“Pumiling hindi mag-appoint ng mga climate scientist sa Climate Change Authority.”
Orihinal na Pinagmulan: Matthew Davis
Orihinal na Pinagmulan
✅ FACTUAL NA BERIPIKASYON
**Ang claim ay technically TRUE ngunit significantly misleading** sa kanyang framing.
The claim is **technically TRUE but significantly misleading** in its framing.
Ang factual basis ay accurate: ang Coalition government ay hindi nag-appoint ng mga climate scientist sa Climate Change Authority (CCA) sa panahon ng kanilang pagkakaupo. The factual basis is accurate: the Coalition government did not appoint climate scientists to the Climate Change Authority (CCA) during its tenure in office.
Gayunpaman, ang buong kwento ay nangangailangan ng mahalagang context tungkol sa kanino nila **hindi pinalitan**, at ang mga kalagayan sa paligid ng desisyong ito. **Ano Talaga ang Nangyari:** Si Professor David Karoly, isang climate scientist mula sa University of Melbourne, ay natapos ang kanyang limang-taong termino sa CCA board noong Hulyo 2017 [1]. However, the full story requires important context about who they **did not replace**, and the circumstances surrounding this decision.
**What Actually Happened:**
Professor David Karoly, a climate scientist from the University of Melbourne, completed his five-year term on the CCA board in July 2017 [1].
Si Karoly ay na-appoint sa board ng nakaraang Labor government noong 2012 at siya ang **tanging climate scientist na naglilingkod sa authority sa panahong iyon** [1]. Karoly had been appointed to the board by the previous Labor government in 2012 and was the **only climate scientist serving on the authority at that time** [1].
Nang matapos ang termino ni Karoly, ang Coalition government ay pumiling hindi mag-appoint ng kapalit na climate scientist sa board [1]. When Karoly's term ended, the Coalition government chose not to appoint a replacement climate scientist to the board [1].
Sinabi sa Guardian article: "Prof David Karoly, ng University of Melbourne, ay katatapos lang ng kanyang termino sa board ng authority – ang tanging miyembro na tumagal ng buong limang taon" at tinalakay na "ang government's Climate Change Authority ay ngayon _sans_ climate scientist" [1]. **Key Context sa Komposisyon ng Board:** Ang CCA board sa panahong natapos ang termino ni Karoly ay may 11 miyembro [2]. The Guardian article states: "Prof David Karoly, of the University of Melbourne, has just finished his term on the authority's board – the only member to stick it out for the full five years" and notes that "the government's Climate Change Authority is now _sans_ climate scientist" [1].
**Key Context on Board Composition:**
The CCA board at the time Karoly's term ended consisted of 11 members [2].
Ayon sa 2016 analysis ng mga miyembro ng board, ang mga ito ay kinabibilangan ng: economist na si John Quiggin, energy consultant na si Stuart Allinson, dating ACT Chief Minister na si Kate Carnell, dating Productivity Commission head na si Wendy Craik, si John Sharp (dating National party parliamentarian), economist na si Danny Price, ANU policy expert na si Andrew Macintosh, dating CCA CEO na si Shayleen Thompson, at Australia's Chief Scientist na si Alan Finkel (na naglilingkod **ex officio**) [2]. **Paliwanag ng Coalition:** Nang tanungin tungkol sa pagpapalit kay Karoly, ang Department of the Environment and Energy ay tumugon: "Ang mga appointment ng pamahalaan sa CCA ay isang bagay para sa Pamahalaan sa ilalim ng batas ng CCA. According to the 2016 analysis of board members, these included: economist John Quiggin, energy consultant Stuart Allinson, former ACT Chief Minister Kate Carnell, former Productivity Commission head Wendy Craik, John Sharp (former National party parliamentarian), economist Danny Price, ANU policy expert Andrew Macintosh, former CCA CEO Shayleen Thompson, and Australia's Chief Scientist Alan Finkel (who serves **ex officio**) [2].
**Coalition's Justification:**
When asked about replacing Karoly, the Department of the Environment and Energy responded: "Government appointments to the CCA are a matter for the Government under the CCA's legislation.
Ang Chief Scientist ay isang ex officio Member ng Authority at maaaring tumulong sa mga scientific matters at sa pagbibigay ng access sa scientific community, kasama na ang mga climate scientist" [1]. The Chief Scientist is an ex officio Member of the Authority and can assist on scientific matters and in providing access to the scientific community, including climate scientists" [1].
Ito ay factually accurate—ang batas ay nagpapahintulot sa Chief Scientist na maglingkod bilang ex officio member, na kanilang ginawa [1]. --- This is factually accurate—the legislation does allow the Chief Scientist to serve as an ex officio member, which they did [1].
---
Nawawalang Konteksto
Ang claim ay significant na nag-a-omit ng mahalagang historical context na nagbabago kung paano dapat ma-interpret ang desisyong ito:
The claim significantly omits important historical context that changes how this decision should be interpreted:
### 1. **Hindi Gumawa ang Coalition ng Sitwasyong Ito; Minana Lamang Nila** ### 1. **Coalition Did NOT Create This Situation; They Inherited It**
Ang CCA ay orihinal na itinatag sa ilalim ng Labor government noong 2012 na may mga climate scientist sa board, kabilang sina Professors David Karoly at Clive Hamilton [2]. The CCA was originally established under the Labor government in 2012 with climate scientists on the board, including Professors David Karoly and Clive Hamilton [2].
Gayunpaman, nang naging Prime Minister si Malcolm Turnbull noong Setyembre 2015, ang Coalition ay gumawa ng **mga bagong appointment sa authority noong Oktubre 2015** [3]. However, when Malcolm Turnbull became Prime Minister in September 2015, the Coalition made **fresh appointments to the authority in October 2015** [3].
Mahalaga: Sa appointment stage noong 2015, ang Coalition **maaaring** nag-appoint ng climate scientist para palitan ang mga umaalis na miyembro, ngunit pumiling hindi. Critically: At this 2015 appointment stage, the Coalition **could have** appointed a climate scientist to replace departing members, but chose not to.
Ang desisyon na walang mga climate scientist sa board ay ginawa noong 2015, hindi 2017. The decision not to have climate scientists on the board was made in 2015, not 2017.
Sa 2017, sila ay simpleng hindi pumalit sa huling natitirang miyembro. By 2017, they were simply not replacing the last one who remained.
### 2. **Ang Totong Kuwento: Pagbabago ng Board sa Ilalim ni Turnbull (2015)** ### 2. **The Real Story: Board Transformation Under Turnbull (2015)**
Ang aktwal na newsworthy event ay hindi ang 2017 kundi ang Oktubre 2015, nang gumawa si Turnbull ng mga bagong appointment sa CCA. The actual newsworthy event was not 2017 but October 2015, when Turnbull made new appointments to the CCA.
Sinabi ni Clive Hamilton, isang climate scientist na naglingkod sa board mula 2012: "Ang buong character ng authority ay nagbago" pagkatapos ng mga appointment noong 2015 [3]. Clive Hamilton, a climate scientist who had served on the board since 2012, stated: "The whole character of the authority changed" after the 2015 appointments [3].
Napansin ni Hamilton na pagkatapos ng Oktubre 2015, ang CCA ay naging "dominated by people who want action, but not too much action" [3]. Hamilton observed that after October 2015, the CCA became "dominated by people who want action, but not too much action" [3].
Nag-resign siya sa CCA noong Marso 2017, bago pa man matapos ang termino ni Karoly, na nagsabing frustrated siya sa direksyon ng board at sa "clean coal" advocacy ng gobyerno [3]. He resigned from the CCA in March 2017, before Karoly's term even ended, citing frustration with the board's direction and the government's "clean coal" advocacy [3].
### 3. **Ang Aktwal na Conflict ay Hindi Tungkol sa Appointment Decisions Kundi Board Control** ### 3. **The Actual Conflict Was Not About Appointment Decisions But Board Control**
Ang sustansya ng concern ng climate science community ay hindi na ang Coalition ay "hindi nag-appoint ng mga scientist" kundi na: - Ang mga appointment noong 2015 ay fundamental na nagbago sa komposisyon ng board patungo sa less ambitious climate action [3] - Sina Hamilton at Karoly ay naglabas ng minority report noong Agosto 2016 na hindi sumasang-ayon sa mga rekomendasyon ng ibang miyembro ng board [2] - Parehong mga scientist ang na-sideline sa pamamagitan ng pagka-outvote sa mga malalaking desisyon [2] Ayon mismo kay Karoly: "Matapos mag-appoint ang Government ng anim na bagong miyembro sa CCA noong 2015, sa palagay ko ay hindi na ito nagpatuloy, sa kabila ng aking mga pagsisikap" tungkol sa pagbibigay ng independent science-based advice [1]. The substance of the climate science community's concern was not that the Coalition "didn't appoint scientists" but rather that:
- The 2015 appointments fundamentally changed the board's composition toward less ambitious climate action [3]
- Hamilton and Karoly issued a minority report in August 2016 disagreeing with other board members' recommendations [2]
- Both scientists were effectively sidelined by being outvoted on major decisions [2]
As Karoly himself stated: "After six new members were appointed by the Government to the CCA in 2015, I do not think this continued to be the case, despite my efforts" regarding providing independent science-based advice [1].
### 4. **Ang Ex Officio Chief Scientist ay Hindi Substitute para sa Specialized Climate Expertise** ### 4. **Ex Officio Chief Scientist Was Not a Substitute for Specialized Climate Expertise**
Ang claim ng gobyerno na ang ex officio Chief Scientist (si Alan Finkel sa panahong iyon) ay maaaring magbigay ng climate expertise ay nangangailangan ng pagsusuri. The government's claim that the ex officio Chief Scientist (Alan Finkel at the time) could provide climate expertise deserves scrutiny.
Habang ang Chief Scientist **maaaring** magbigay ng scientific advice, ang pagkakaroon ng dedicated na climate scientist na miyembro ng board ay nagbibigay ng focused expertise na tukoy sa climate policy—hindi substitute role [1]. While the Chief Scientist **can** provide scientific advice, having a dedicated climate scientist board member provides focused expertise specifically on climate policy—not a substitute role [1].
Sinabi mismo ni Karoly: "Sa palagay ko ay napakahalaga na ang hindi bababa sa isang miyembro ng Climate Change Authority ay isang eksperto at may karanasang climate change scientist" [1]. --- Karoly himself stated: "I think that it is critically important that at least one member of the Climate Change Authority is an expert and experienced climate change scientist" [1].
---
Pagsusuri ng Kredibilidad ng Pinagmulan
Ang primary source na ibinigay ay ang Guardian Australia (Planet Oz section), isang mainstream news organization, at ang partikular na artikulong ito ni Graham Readfearn ay factually sound, well-documented, at hindi inihamon.
The primary source provided is the Guardian Australia (Planet Oz section), a mainstream news organization, and this particular article by Graham Readfearn is factually sound, well-documented, and has not been challenged.
Gayunpaman, ang framing ng artikulo ay may malinaw na **climate advocacy perspective**. However, the article's framing has a clear **climate advocacy perspective**.
Ang headline na "Climate Change Authority loses last climate scientist" ay technically accurate ngunit ni-frame ito bilang isang pagkawala/negative event, na nagre-reflect ng editorial judgment tungkol sa kung ano ang nagco-constitute ng problema [1]. The headline "Climate Change Authority loses last climate scientist" is technically accurate but frames this as a loss/negative event, which reflects editorial judgment about what constitutes a problem [1].
Ang tone ng artikulo—pagbukas sa rhetorical questions tungkol sa mga board nang walang relevant experts—ay nagre-reflect ng critical commentary [1]. The article's tone—opening with rhetorical questions about boards without relevant experts—reflects critical commentary [1].
Ang artikulo ay hindi inaccurate, ngunit ang **framing ay nag-i-implika na ang Coalition ay kumilos nang hindi makatwiran**. The article is not inaccurate, but the **framing implies the Coalition acted unreasonably**.
Para magbigay ng balance, dapat nating siyasatin: Talaga bang hindi makatwiran para sa Coalition na hindi specific na mag-appoint ng mga climate scientist? --- To provide balance, we must examine: Was it actually unreasonable for the Coalition to not specifically appoint climate scientists?
---
🌐
Balanseng Pananaw
### Ang Puna (Ang Sinasabi ng Claim)
### The Criticism (What the Claim Emphasizes)
Ang desisyon ng Coalition na hindi mag-appoint ng mga climate scientist sa CCA pagkatapos ng 2015 ay lehitimong nakakabahala dahil: 1. **Pagsasaalang-alang sa statutory requirement**: Ang Climate Change Authority Act 2011 ay nangangailangan na ang authority ay magkaroon ng regard sa "environmental effectiveness" kapag nagre-review ng mga patakaran [1]. The Coalition's decision not to appoint climate scientists to the CCA after 2015 is legitimately concerning because:
1. **Statutory requirement consideration**: The Climate Change Authority Act 2011 requires the authority to have regard to "environmental effectiveness" when reviewing policies [1].
Ang mga climate scientist ay nagbibigay ng kritikal na expertise para sa pagsusuri ng environmental effectiveness. 2. **Expertise gap**: Malinaw na binabalaan ni Karoly na nang wala ang isang climate scientist sa board, ang CCA ay "mahihirapang matupad ang kanyang legal mandate" [1]. Climate scientists provide critical expertise for assessing environmental effectiveness.
2. **Expertise gap**: Karoly explicitly warned that without a climate scientist on the board, the CCA would "struggle to fulfil its legal mandate" [1].
Ipinaliwanag niya: "Ang gayong miyembro ay kailangan para magbigay ng impormasyon at interpretasyon sa pinakabagong mga climate change science publications at data" [1]. 3. **Ebidensya ng sidelining**: Ang katotohanan na sina Karoly at Hamilton, parehong mga climate scientist, ay nakaramdam ng pangangailangang maglabas ng minority report noong 2016 at pagkatapos ay mag-resign ay nagmumungkahi na sila ay tunay na concerned tungkol sa pagiging marginalised [2, 3]. 4. **Pattern ng mga appointment**: Ang mga appointment noong Oktubre 2015 sa ilalim ni Turnbull ay nagresulta sa isang board kung saan ang mga miyembro ay, ayon kay Hamilton, "dominated by people who want action, but not too much action" [3]—na nagmumungkahi ng ideological rather than expertise-based selection. He explained: "Such a member is needed to provide information and interpretation on the latest climate change science publications and data" [1].
3. **Evidence of sidelining**: The fact that Karoly and Hamilton, both climate scientists, felt compelled to issue a minority report in 2016 and subsequently resign suggests they were genuinely concerned about being marginalised [2, 3].
4. **Pattern of appointments**: The October 2015 appointments under Turnbull resulted in a board where members were, according to Hamilton, "dominated by people who want action, but not too much action" [3]—suggesting ideological rather than expertise-based selection.
### Ang Perspektiba ng Coalition (Ang Hindi Sinasabi ng Claim) ### The Coalition's Perspective (What the Claim Omits)
Para magbigay ng balanced context, maaaring ipagtanggol ng Coalition ang: 1. **Ex officio membership**: Ang Chief Scientist na naglilingkod ex officio ay dapat na tiyakin na ang scientific expertise ay mananatiling available sa board. To provide balanced context, the Coalition might argue:
1. **Ex officio membership**: The Chief Scientist serving ex officio is meant to ensure scientific expertise remains available to the board.
Bagama't hindi perpektong substitute, ito ay isang legal provision na nagpapahintulot ng scientific input. 2. **Flexibility sa komposisyon ng board**: Ang CCA Act ay hindi nagmamandato ng mga climate scientist sa board—ang gobyerno ay may diskresyon sa mga appointment, na kanilang ipinatupad [1]. 3. **Diverse expertise**: Ang mga board ay nakikinabang mula sa iba't ibang perspectives. While not a perfect substitute, this was a legal provision allowing scientific input.
2. **Board composition flexibility**: The CCA Act does not mandate climate scientists on the board—the government has discretion in appointments, which they exercised [1].
3. **Diverse expertise**: Boards benefit from diverse perspectives.
Ang mga appointment na ginawa ay kasama ang mga economist, energy consultant, at policy experts—lahat ay relevant sa mga desisyon sa climate policy. 4. **Hindi kakaibang puna**: Ang mga board ng mga advisor ay madalas na nakakaranas ng puna tungkol sa komposisyon. The appointments made included economists, energy consultants, and policy experts—all relevant to climate policy decisions.
4. **Not unique criticism**: Boards of advisors frequently face criticism about composition.
Walang coalition government (ni Labor bago sila) ang maaaring inaasahang mag-appoint ng mga board member na eksklusibo batay sa mga preference ng mga nakaraang appointees. 5. **Limitadong ebidensya ng pinsala**: Habang ang mga kritiko ay nag-alala na ang CCA ay mahihirapan, ito ay nagpatuloy na gumawa ng mga report at advice sa buong panahon ng Coalition (bagama't ang nilalaman ng mga report na iyon ay pinagtalo, tulad ng ipinahiwatig ng minority report). No coalition government (nor Labor before them) can be expected to appoint board members exclusively based on the preferences of previous appointees.
5. **Limited evidence of harm**: While critics worried the CCA would struggle, it continued to produce reports and advice throughout the Coalition's tenure (though the content of those reports was disputed, as evidenced by the minority report).
### Ang Mas Malalim na Isyu ### The Deeper Issue
n Ang totoong kwento ay hindi na ang Coalition ay "hindi nag-appoint ng mga climate scientist" kundi na ang **2015 Turnbull government ay fundamental na binago ang direksyon at komposisyon ng CCA**, lumayo sa orihinal na misyon ng katawan na magbigay ng independent, science-based advice sa climate policy [3]. The real story is not that the Coalition "didn't appoint climate scientists" but rather that the **2015 Turnbull government fundamentally changed the CCA's direction and composition**, moving away from the body's original mission to provide independent, science-based advice on climate policy [3].
Ito ay isang deliberate political choice, at ang katotohanang ang mga climate scientist ay hindi na-appoint ay isang sintomas ng mas malawak na realignment na ito, hindi isang aksidente [3]. --- This was a deliberate political choice, and the fact that climate scientists were not appointed was a symptom of this broader realignment, not an accident [3].
---
BAHAGYANG TOTOO
6.5
sa 10
Ang claim ay factually accurate—ang Coalition ay hindi nag-appoint ng mga climate scientist sa CCA.
The claim is factually accurate—the Coalition did not appoint climate scientists to the CCA.
Gayunpaman, ang claim ay **misleading sa kanyang framing at omissions** dahil: 1. **Hindi kumpletong causation**: Ang claim ay nag-i-implika na ang Coalition ay simpleng gumawa ng passive decision noong 2017, nang ang aktwal na substantive decision ay ginawa noong Oktubre 2015 nang mag-appoint si Turnbull ng mga bagong board member. 2. **Nawawalang kritikal na context**: Ang CCA ay fundamental na na-transform ng mga appointment noong 2015; si Karoly ay hindi pinalitan dahil ang gobyerno ay deliberate na inilipat ang komposisyon ng board palayo sa malakas na climate science expertise pabor sa ibang perspectives. 3. **Implicitly unfair characterization**: Ang phrasing ng claim ("pumiling hindi mag-appoint") ay nagmumungkahi ng deliberate exclusion na tila arbitrary, nang sa katunayan ay bahagi ito ng isang deliberate ideological at compositional shift ng Turnbull government. 4. **Kulang sa accountability attribution**: Ang isang mas kumpletong claim ay magiging "Ang Turnbull government ay deliberate na inilipat ang komposisyon ng board ng CCA palayo sa mga climate scientist, sa halip ay pumiling mag-appoint ng mga miyembro na mas aligned sa mas limitadong approach ng gobyerno sa climate action." **Ang pundamental na katotohanan**: Oo, walang climate scientist sa CCA board pagkatapos ng 2017. However, the claim is **misleading in its framing and omissions** because:
1. **Incomplete causation**: The claim implies the Coalition simply made a passive decision in 2017, when the actual substantive decision was made in October 2015 when Turnbull appointed new board members.
2. **Missing crucial context**: The CCA had been fundamentally transformed by 2015 appointments; Karoly was not replaced because the government had deliberately shifted the board's composition away from strong climate science expertise in favor of other perspectives.
3. **Implicitly unfair characterization**: The claim's phrasing ("chose not to appoint") suggests a deliberate exclusion that seems arbitrary, when in fact it was part of a deliberate ideological and compositional shift by the Turnbull government.
4. **Lacks accountability attribution**: A more complete claim would be "The Turnbull government deliberately shifted the CCA's board composition away from climate scientists, choosing instead to appoint members more aligned with the government's more limited climate action approach."
**The fundamental truth**: Yes, there was no climate scientist on the CCA board after 2017.
Ito **ay** isang consequence ng Coalition policy. This **was** a consequence of Coalition policy.
Ngunit ang claim ay oversimplify kung ano talaga ang isang deliberate at controversial na transformation ng character at misyon ng board sa ilalim ni Turnbull. --- But the claim oversimplifies what was actually a deliberate and controversial transformation of the board's character and mission under Turnbull.
---
Huling Iskor
6.5
SA 10
BAHAGYANG TOTOO
Ang claim ay factually accurate—ang Coalition ay hindi nag-appoint ng mga climate scientist sa CCA.
The claim is factually accurate—the Coalition did not appoint climate scientists to the CCA.
Gayunpaman, ang claim ay **misleading sa kanyang framing at omissions** dahil: 1. **Hindi kumpletong causation**: Ang claim ay nag-i-implika na ang Coalition ay simpleng gumawa ng passive decision noong 2017, nang ang aktwal na substantive decision ay ginawa noong Oktubre 2015 nang mag-appoint si Turnbull ng mga bagong board member. 2. **Nawawalang kritikal na context**: Ang CCA ay fundamental na na-transform ng mga appointment noong 2015; si Karoly ay hindi pinalitan dahil ang gobyerno ay deliberate na inilipat ang komposisyon ng board palayo sa malakas na climate science expertise pabor sa ibang perspectives. 3. **Implicitly unfair characterization**: Ang phrasing ng claim ("pumiling hindi mag-appoint") ay nagmumungkahi ng deliberate exclusion na tila arbitrary, nang sa katunayan ay bahagi ito ng isang deliberate ideological at compositional shift ng Turnbull government. 4. **Kulang sa accountability attribution**: Ang isang mas kumpletong claim ay magiging "Ang Turnbull government ay deliberate na inilipat ang komposisyon ng board ng CCA palayo sa mga climate scientist, sa halip ay pumiling mag-appoint ng mga miyembro na mas aligned sa mas limitadong approach ng gobyerno sa climate action." **Ang pundamental na katotohanan**: Oo, walang climate scientist sa CCA board pagkatapos ng 2017. However, the claim is **misleading in its framing and omissions** because:
1. **Incomplete causation**: The claim implies the Coalition simply made a passive decision in 2017, when the actual substantive decision was made in October 2015 when Turnbull appointed new board members.
2. **Missing crucial context**: The CCA had been fundamentally transformed by 2015 appointments; Karoly was not replaced because the government had deliberately shifted the board's composition away from strong climate science expertise in favor of other perspectives.
3. **Implicitly unfair characterization**: The claim's phrasing ("chose not to appoint") suggests a deliberate exclusion that seems arbitrary, when in fact it was part of a deliberate ideological and compositional shift by the Turnbull government.
4. **Lacks accountability attribution**: A more complete claim would be "The Turnbull government deliberately shifted the CCA's board composition away from climate scientists, choosing instead to appoint members more aligned with the government's more limited climate action approach."
**The fundamental truth**: Yes, there was no climate scientist on the CCA board after 2017.
Ito **ay** isang consequence ng Coalition policy. This **was** a consequence of Coalition policy.
Ngunit ang claim ay oversimplify kung ano talaga ang isang deliberate at controversial na transformation ng character at misyon ng board sa ilalim ni Turnbull. --- But the claim oversimplifies what was actually a deliberate and controversial transformation of the board's character and mission under Turnbull.
---
📚 MGA PINAGMULAN AT SANGGUNIAN (3)
-
1
Climate Change Authority loses last climate scientist
David Karoly says without an expert to replace him, the CCA will struggle to fulfil its legal mandate
the Guardian -
2
Climate Change Authority splits over ETS report commissioned by Coalition
Exclusive: Top climate advisers divided over report, which recommends a policy that could break the political gridlock over climate change
the Guardian -
3
'It's a tragedy,' Clive Hamilton says of Turnbull's climate transformation
Former Climate Change Authority member reveals what went on before he quit and offers a withering assessment of the PM
the Guardian
Pamamaraan ng Rating Scale
1-3: MALI
Hindi tama sa katotohanan o malisyosong gawa-gawa.
4-6: BAHAGYA
May katotohanan ngunit kulang o baluktot ang konteksto.
7-9: HALOS TOTOO
Maliit na teknikal na detalye o isyu sa pagkakasulat.
10: TUMPAK
Perpektong na-verify at patas ayon sa konteksto.
Pamamaraan: Ang mga rating ay tinutukoy sa pamamagitan ng cross-referencing ng opisyal na mga rekord ng pamahalaan, independiyenteng mga organisasyong nag-fact-check, at mga primaryang dokumento.