Scores by kind of claim
Each kind of claim is scored on its own, out of 100: the share that held up, with the range it likely falls in. Fewer resolved claims give a wider range.
-
Factual claims
Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
84 73 93 -
Predictions
Statements about events outside the person's control, checked once they fell due: did they come true?
46 27 65 -
Promises
Commitments to the person's or organisation's own future action, with something to deliver: was it delivered?
60 40 79
All types combined: 70 (likely 61 to 78, medium confidence), from 29 claims: 16 factual claims, 7 predictions, 6 promises. It mixes kinds of claim in different proportions for different people, so compare people kind by kind.
Ørsted's claims
46 claims
“We replace coal with biomass and through our sourcing, we need to ensure that the biomass is sustainable.”
DONG Energy, annual report 2017 DONG Energy Annual report 2016 Summary (DONG Energy)
We replace coal with biomass and through our sourcing, we need to ensure that the biomass is sustainable.
Not checkable An opinion, value judgement or statement with nothing to check.
Cite this claim
Ørsted, “We replace coal with biomass and through our sourcing, we need to ensure that the biomass is sustainable.” (said 2017). Verdict: not checkable. Reliability API, claim c_14eb7e79c645, method 0.1.0+7831dd9d. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_14eb7e79c645
Claims without a verdict
Is a verdict here wrong, or do you speak for Ørsted? Reply on the claim's own page, with the form at its foot (how replies work). Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts and scores are made.