 [00:00:00] Welcome back to Drilled. I'm Amy Westervelt, and over the next couple months I'm prepping to go to my very first COP! That stands for Conference of the Parties. It's an annual UN Climate Summit that brings together all the countries that are parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change or U-N-F-C-C-C.

It's true. I've been a climate reporter for more than 20 years and have somehow managed to avoid going to cop all this time. I'm going this year because it relates to a couple of projects we're working on for next year, and because the organizing committee from Brazil has vowed to make climate information integrity a focus of this year's gathering.

That's important because as we'll learn today, climate miss and disinformation is a huge part of the reason the world has not acted on this issue. I'm also curious to [00:01:00] get a front row seat because there's a real crisis of legitimacy happening with the COPs . This year is COP 30. That means they've been happening for 30 years and we don't seem any closer to a global solution to climate change than we were 30 years ago.

I'm also interested to see what happens when one of the world's biggest obstructors the United States, decides not to go, who will pick up the slack? Will it be Saudi? Yes, but also Japan. Even Europe, a lot of negotiators are heading into COP, wanting to protect their country's resources, their countries' approach to markets, all of those things.

So it will be interesting to see what [00:02:00] happens up close. And to get ready, I'm reading this new book from the Climate Social Science Network that pulls together everything we currently know about climate obstruction all over the world. It's great prep for this conference. I'm joined today by two researchers who look at how misinformation functions, why it's so effective, and what can be done to combat it.

John Cook is a senior research fellow with the Melbourne Center for Behavior Change at the University of Melbourne, researching how to use critical thinking to counter misinformation. You might have seen his research referenced in the past around the idea of tering, a misinformation technique that the oil companies love where you use.

Accurate bits of information assembled in such a way that they mislead people. Also joining us is Dominic Tela. He's an assistant professor of [00:03:00] Political Science at Colorado State University, whose research focuses on the information environment and its effects on society.

We talked about all sorts of things from the role ideology, polarization, and social media play in misinformation to concepts like solutions aversion and elite cues. That's coming up after this quick break. This is drilled season 14 obstruction.

I'm sure you guys get asked this a hundred times a week, but I'm gonna ask you to do it again. Can I have you define the, the difference between misinformation and disinformation? And I think you make this really interesting point about the fact that like intentionality maybe doesn't matter so much here.

So I'd love to hear you say more about that [00:04:00] as well.

 In this literature on, on misinformation and disinformation, a lot of attention has been paid to intentionality, right? And the basic definition of misinformation is, is a false or misleading, uh, content that's shared without any intent to deceive. Um, whereas disinformation is shared with intent to deceive.

But, but what we say in the chapter is that, uh, on climate and, and really often in, in most other things, intent is, is unknowable, right? Sometimes. You, you, you get to know the intent through the release of private correspondence of a certain cable network, for example, right? But, uh, but in general, uh, in intent is unknowable and, and, uh, the same claim like volcanoes submit more CO2 than humans misleads audiences, regardless of, of whether the, the, the person sharing it wants to deceive or, or doesn't.

So, [00:05:00] so we think that it's better to focus on what these claims do, and what they do is they erode understanding and ultimately stall any meaningful climate action.

 And I would just add to that, um, that uh, when people believe misinformation, um, they will often make arguments that look exactly the same from the outside, using the same misleading techniques as people who are intentionally trying to deceive. And the reason for that is because when we are motivated to believe something, we gravitate towards these different biases. Uh, and for example, we might, uh, be biased towards believing certain types of information and that leads us to cherry pick data. So just pick, pick the bits of information that suit our beliefs and ignore all the information that contradicts our beliefs. So someone might be cherry picking because they're biased or they might be cherry picking 'cause they're intentionally trying to deceive [00:06:00] people. You don't know from the outside self-deception looks exactly the same as intentional deception from the outside.

 Right. Interesting. Okay. Um, can I have you define the elaboration likelihood model of attitude change and talk about how it shows up when we're talking about climate misinformation.

 So it's a big, uh, big theory in, in, in psychology and in in communications. And the gist of it is that we tend to process messages in, in different ways. Uh, sometimes it's, uh, via central route, and that's the careful evaluation. Uh, and we do that when we're motivated and, and able to, to really evaluate a claim, um, or the messages is processed through the peripheral route.

So things like shortcuts, like, you know, using a specific source, a vibe, quote unquote an identity. Uh, and we do that when we have limited time [00:07:00] or, or ability to really process and, and evaluate the claim. Since climate is a very complex issue, uh, most people tend to lean on, on the latter, on the peripheral route, on the shortcuts.

They don't really have frequently the ability and sometimes time to really process carefully that the claims, that's how ELM really pops up in the context of climate misinformation, because we tend to rely on this peripheral route on, on these shortcuts that we take mental shortcuts. Like who's saying things, what's the vibe, uh, the identity behind the speaker, or the identity that's triggered by the thing that's claimed.

So, so that's really the kind of the underlying basis for, for how this pops up in the broader context of climate misinformation.

 Yeah, I, um, I had never seen this before and it was really, really interesting for me, so I appreciate it. Um,

 similar to some of the, the kind of Danny [00:08:00] Kaman and, and the kind of thinking fast and slow, kind of cognitive, uh, you know, system one, system two, thinking it's, it's a similar, similar idea. Um, but yeah, that's, that's kind of, I think how I would, it's, there's obviously more to it than this, but that's how I would, I would, uh, kind of characterize where it fits in the context of what we're talking about.

Right? And a broad idea is that, let's say a 22nd clip from a politician you trust can outweigh an 800 word explainer because the clip hits this peripheral route, right? The identity, the emotion, uh, whereas the explainer demands a lot more cognitive effort that you might not have.

 And a lot of misinformation, arguments are superficially persuasive. They just, they just flow. They, they, they might have a logical fallacy, but they just, um, have a kind of a, a flow to it that, that sound, um, kind of [00:09:00] truthy to people.

 Yeah. Yeah. Um, public opinion comes up a lot in this, and obviously, um, you know, one of the. Key, maybe the key uses of misinformation is to shape public opinion, but, um, but I'd love to have you actually define what that means for people and then talk a little bit about how, um, climate misinformation works to sort of shape public opinion in, in one direction or another. Um, you mentioned this bottom up and top down, uh, approaches in the, in the paper too, and it'd be great to have you explain what that is.

 So, yeah, with public opinion, it, it can cover a couple of different things. Um, like one of the obvious things is people's perceptions about climate change. Do they think that climate change is happening and human cause and that the impacts will be bad? Uh, and we, we talk more specifically about those beliefs later in the chapter. But it [00:10:00] also extends to people's attitudes about climate action. Do they support policies to mitigate climate change? Do they support renewable energy? Uh, and so there's, there's that whole mix of perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes, and misinformation has several aims. Uh, it's about confusing people's perceptions about climate change, but ultimately it's about reducing public support for climate action.

 I, I'll just add maybe more, more just broader kinda meta as a, as a, as a, as a political scientist, you know, public opinion. It's this really important feature of, you know, democratic theory, right? And what we think of as, as, uh, what makes democratic society, um, actually democratic, right? And, and the idea is that this kinda aggregation of, of what people think and want, uh, should be reflected in what the, [00:11:00] the politicians do and the policies that, that, uh, the government ends up pursuing, right?

So though in, in many ways public opinion in, in, in theory at least, should be the driver, the, the push or stall of policy, and in the context of, of climate change, it, it definitely, uh, can stall it as well. Um, so. Misinformation in that context kind of tilts that playing field because it makes action harder, even when, uh, majorities support, uh, and believe in climate change and support certain kinds of climate action as we've seen in, in a lot of polling in, in the United States, but also in in other countries.

Um, in terms of the bottom up versus top down, um, uh, movements and, and, and pushing on, on public opinion. The idea is that, you know, in, in terms of bottom up, um, everyday [00:12:00] average people can share things they believe, uh, or, or, or, or, you know, they wrongly believed in terms of misinformed claims. Um, and, uh, because of how we structure our time and uh, kind of virtual spaces in which we tend to spend a lot of our time, uh, at using, you know, social media, et cetera.

Um. That bottom up pressure, you know, viral claims that are misinformed can really impact public opinion, right? When, when, when unchecked, uh, misinformation spreading on social media can really do a lot of damage. Um, so that's the bottom, bottom up component. The top down component is the elite. Uh, you know, and by elite I mean, I mean here, uh, politicians, um.

Interest groups, uh, of, of all kinds, including the fossil fuel, uh, industry. Um, they can [00:13:00] seed certain narratives and influence the public. Public, then public then repeats those claims. So the, the top down, bottom up dynamic is, is mutually reinforcing in, in, in many ways they, they, they reinforce each other, right?

Like a lot of the claims that quote unquote, organically show up on social media, um, have been supplied, uh, by, by, by elites, by interest groups, right? So, for example, a, in a context of climate misinformation, you can have a meme about, uh, EVs being dirtier than gas cars, and that might spread on social media.

Um, and it may appear to be something that's organic that, that people are just sharing among themselves. But, uh. Where did that come from? Where did it originate? Well, frequently, those types of tidbits, those type, those types of misinformed, uh, the misinformed, uh, content, uh, they originate with a lobbying group with, uh, with a specific [00:14:00] interest group that has a vested interest in spreading a certain narrative.

So, so in that sense, the, the kind of bottom up and top down influences of public opinion are mutually reinforcing because one feeds into another and, and then that pushes public opinion into, um, into places that is maybe, uh, less than ideal because, uh, it is based on information that is not truthful, not not correct, and ultimately, uh, deceiving.

 Okay, so, um, you talk about the, the fact that Americans aligned with the re with the Republican party are more skeptical now of climate science than they were in the 1990s. And, um, kind of use that as a jumping off point to talk about the role that ideology plays in shaping climate opinions. And, And, then you know, how climate misinformation kind of plays into that.

So I'd love to. Have you talk a little bit about ideology and just the role that it plays in climate [00:15:00] misinformation, which I realize, you know, you could probably spend two hours talking about

plus plus, but, um, but yeah, like how, I don't know, I guess Yeah. How does it work and, and why is it such a, um, an indicator of, of like how effective climate misinformation will be.

 in the psychology field, we talk about the concept of solutions aversion. Which is the idea that, uh, when people don't like a proposed solution to a problem, then they're more likely to deny that there's a problem in the first place. And we see this with climate change. Political conservatives often don't, they don't like some of the often proposed solutions to climate change, such as regulating fossil fuels, um, and, and trying to reduce emissions in that way. And so rather than coming up with their own free market solutions to climate change, instead, unfortunately, they, um, deny the, [00:16:00] the problem need solving. Uh, and so this is really the main driver why political ideology, uh, shapes people's climate opinions. And, and really back in the early 1990s, we were at this crossroad where the problem of climate change was becoming more, um.

A, a real, like the scientists were becoming clearer on the, the need to act on climate change and, and conservative groups ha really had this option where they could have either proposed conservative solutions to climate change or denied the problem. And it's a real historic tragedy that instead the conservative think tanks opted to deny the problem and produce misinformation.

And ever since then, misinformation has been polluting the information landscape and polarizing the public.

 Yeah, totally agree with everything John said. I mean, a few things I would add is [00:17:00] that when we think of. Ideology. Most people, at least in the United States, um, they are not consistently liberal or conservative right people. People can have views that are all over the place. Um, but increasingly in a polarized political landscape like ours, um, it is becoming, uh, the society is sorting along those partisan minds, uh, more and more so than than ever before.

Um, historically when, when you knew the fact that somebody is a liberal or conservative, you know, 40, 50 years ago that didn't really predict your ability to guess whether they're a Democrat or Republican, right? Uh, because there were, there were liberals and conservatives in both parties. Um, there were southern racist Democrats and there were northern kind of liberal.

[00:18:00] Republicans like Nelson Rockefeller to a certain extent, um, that no longer exists, right? The, the, the, the ideology and partisanship are sorted in the sense that if I now know that somebody identifies as a conservative, I have a pretty good guess that they also are a Republican. Uh, and same with, with, uh, liberals and, and Democrats.

And, and essentially ideology matters for climate views because partisanship, uh, and partisan polarization that kind of drives a lot of our politics these days. Climate is one of the issues on which parties have polarized. And that simply means that if you wanna be a member of good standing of the Republican party, um, you know that you need to be against climate action, right?

You need to be opposed to, you know, socialist leftists who wants to implement certain policies. [00:19:00] I'm obviously using air quotes here, which is not very useful, uh, tool to for, for radio. But, but, um, you know, that that's, that's, that's an axis of, of major division in, in society now in, in the United States.

And, and that is essentially translates to. This tribal way of thinking about climate because you know what's expected of people in your political tribe to believe. So any kinda thoughtful engagement with any kind of facts, et cetera, that that comes second to that. Right? When something becomes more of an identity than just a belief about a specific thing, it's much harder to change that, right?

Because it is part of a package of things that you choose to identify as. So ideology in that context is, is also, um. Troubling for climate views in the context of polarized American politics because ideology and partisanship are [00:20:00] very tied together now, and, and it's, it's one of those divisive things where the, where there's a lot less room for actual thoughtful debate now because it's one of those issues in which the public is polarized and you just know that if, if you're left or right, that's the view you're supposed to have.

 Yeah. Yeah. Um, okay. Can you define for me elite cues and tell me about how they shape public opinion on climate change? What are these things? Thanks.

 I can say a few things since, uh, published on this, but essentially cues coming from trusted, uh, leaders. And in the context of climate change, we mostly mean, uh, leaders like politicians. And, you know, in, in given that, uh, American politics is so polarized and politics is an important part of how people [00:21:00] kind of see themselves messages coming from major political figures carry right, they're important because politics is important.

Uh, but it doesn't just mean politicians. It also means, uh, other trusted societal. For the lack of a better word, influencers, right? Like religious leaders, um, celebrities, et cetera. So elite cues would essentially be messages that come from trusted opinion sources that have the power to sway public opinion.

Um, they matter in the context of what we're talking about here because they not only can influence how your own team thinks about something, but they can also influence how the other team thinks. So one example being, um, the Inconvenient truth, um, the movie and, and Al Gore being a main [00:22:00] messenger when, when climate change really became a very salient issue in the early two thousands.

Al Gore, um. Was a trusted opinion leader for a lot of Democrats as a presidential candidate and a former two term vice president. But what we might now forget is that he was also a very disliked figure on the right. His, uh, his assessment on, uh, among Republicans in the United States was as negative as Hillary Clinton's in 2016, for example.

Right. He was a very polarizing figure, and the reason why I bring him up is that because he was the messenger, he obviously moved Democrats in a pro climate direction because he was a trusted leader on their side, but because he was so hated by the other side, he also moved Republicans. In the other direction [00:23:00] just because the, kind of the, the logic is if the person that you really hate says something, then you're just gonna almost by default do the opposite.

Right? And, and, and that's the power of elite cues in the sense that they can move, um, they can move your team, um, but they can also do some damage by, if you're choosing the wrong messenger, it can really backfire in a sense of making people really skeptical of what the content of the message is because the messenger is so distrusted and so disliked.

 And I'll just add to that, uh, a couple of studies have looked at what drives public opinion about climate change, looking at all the different factors such as economic factors, um, and, and elite cues. And they've found that elite cues are one of the biggest. Drivers of public opinion about climate change, which really underscores that people are tribal, as Dominic was saying earlier. And so when our tribal leaders, [00:24:00] um, giving us these cues in a certain direction, um, people, uh, tend to follow that.

 I actually was just listening earlier today to, um, to like old CSP span tape of, um, the head of the RNC at the time, um, during the Gore Bush election, like laying into to Gore who she happened. She was actually, you know, I Bruce Harrison's wife too, which is like a whole, a whole weird connection in and of, in and of itself.

Um, okay. And not a coincidence, I'm sure. Um, okay, so I wanna talk about the news media. Again, I feel like this, each of these topics could like be, you know, a whole long discussion in and of themselves, but, um, but in. In broad strokes, what role does the news media play in shaping public opinion, especially on climate And, um, and what has it done to [00:25:00] kind of either amplify or um, try to correct misinformation?

 So the media have, uh, in some cases, um, helped amplify or spread climate misinformation. And sometimes that's intentional. Sometimes it's unintentional. Uh, conservative media outlets have been a particularly, uh, as time has gone on, they've gotten worse at it, have been quite a, um, productive source of climate misinformation. Uh, and so that's, that's more of an intentional, uh, um, misleading the public kind of source. But you also have unintentional misinforming, such as when just mainstream media present climate change as a, as a false balance where they give both sides of an issue equal weight, uh, which is entirely appropriate when it's issues of political opinion or um, policy. But [00:26:00] when it comes to issues where there's a scientific consensus. Then presenting like a 50 50 debate between a scientist and a climate denni just has a misinforming effect. So I mean, we were talking at the beginning about misinformation and disinformation and how difficult it is to tell the difference between the two. We see that with how media have covered climate change too, whether it's intentional or not. Um, there are these different ways of misinforming the public.

 Yeah, the, the false balance that John's referring to, um, the, the norm in a lot of newsrooms and, and the profound fear of being seen as biased leads to certain types of coverage that, that, like John highlighted, is not ideal in the context of a scientific issue. I think the, the problem with a lot of the, how the media inclu, including nonpartisan media, so I'm not even talking [00:27:00] now about, uh, certain cable news networks or explicitly partisan sources of information, but, but just your run of the mill mainstream news sources outside of even just the false balance, which, which is wrong and, and should be avoided.

The, the what, what has happened is that increasingly, as the public has polarized on this issue. The issue is presented more as a political one than a scientific one. Um, I've done, uh, a big study with, with content analysis of climate change coverage, looking at decades of, of climate change and, and global warming news, uh, in American media starting in the, uh, in the nineties and going, going in into 2016.

And, and what has happened is, uh. Experts are featured prominently, which is good, but increasingly they share the space with [00:28:00] politicians. And a lot of coverage includes, um, references and quotes from politicians. And the moment politicians kind of crowd out the experts to people on the receiving end to the news consumers, it just becomes a partisan issue and not a scientific issue.

So, so in that sense, it, it isn't just a false balance of, oh, we, we, we need to, uh, present this issue in a quote unquote balanced and fair way. We don't want to be called, uh, you know, partisan hacks. So we're gonna have a pro climate change and an anti-climate change person on. Even beyond that, the sheer fact that the volume of.

Of, of poli politicians in the climate change coverage, uh, has helped to polarize the public and make it an issue where, uh, to be a good member, uh, to be a member in good standing of, of the, [00:29:00] uh, of a certain political party. You need to have a specific political position on that issue.

 Yeah, I, um, I mean, I've been a reporter for a long time and I keep seeing this in amongst a lot of climate reporters right now. Especially like, um, I don't know, like I, I feel like at least in the US people have moved away somewhat from the false equip. Lens thing, but there's this, this, um, kind of archetype of a, of reporter who I think thinks it makes them seem smarter if they are like more open to industry talking points, you know?

Um, like it makes them, I don't know. I don't know. Anyway, it's, it's very annoying.

 Oh, great. Great. Amazing. Uh, it's really, I don't know. I find it, I find it very annoying. Um, yeah. Okay. So actually you mentioned academia and um, I know that's not a [00:30:00] specific focus in this chapter, but

kind of tying into elite cues and some of the news media stuff in general too.

I wonder how much, um, kind of using acade like academics, especially at really, um, elite universities, helps with pushing climate misinformation, um, to various publics as well. Yeah, it's an is like that messenger for, for, these guys,

 That's an interesting question. Uh, uh, so from 2017 to 2020, I was based at George Mason University in Virginia

John. Exactly, yes. Uh, so, you know, you gotta, you gotta change from within, right? That was,

 that's the thing. And so George Mason is really ground zero for the, where the Koch brothers have tried to spread their influence through academia and universities. So the Koch brothers are, um, [00:31:00] uh, basically the fossil fuel industry. Like they're incredibly rich, incredibly influential, and playing a very impressive, long game in terms of influencing not just public opinion, but, uh, influencing universities and, and thought and, and then, and then that going on to influence, um, elites, political elites and, and the public as well.

So, so, and this has been a strategy. Going over decades. Uh, and, and it's been quite effective in terms of influencing the public towards their, um, not only their political beliefs, but also casting doubt on climate change.

 And I would add to it the growing strain of, uh, populism as we, uh, document in the chapter we have the whole case study of, of Brazil, but in general, just populism and, and anti intellectualism essentially [00:32:00] means that increasingly even the experts themselves are not a very, uh, trusted group for a certain segment of the population.

Uh, so when we talk about elite cues, um, you know, the, the academic expert, uh, queue, uh, might be useful for a lot of. Uh, people. Uh, but for some it might be a polarizing one. Um, because they view, uh, uh, academics, researchers as, as the, out, as the outgroup, right? They view them as, as the enemy. So why on earth would, would you trust somebody who, who is, uh, who is, uh, an outgroup and who doesn't have, uh, your and your country's best interests in, in heart, right?

Like, which is, I mean, the, the, like, vice President JD Vance literally said that professors are the, the enemy, right? [00:33:00] So, so, so in that sense, that makes messaging, Harvard guy calls Harvard guys the enemy. Yeah.

Exactly. Uh, so, so it is, it is, uh, it is a very tricky landscape now, right. Because in, in that sense, even, even, uh, expertise alone and, and credentials are being challenged in order to, to sow doubt and, and divide.

 yeah. Yeah. I know. I was reading this and I sent, um, a snippet of it to my husband because the, my sister-in-law is like this. She is like super anti, um, any kind of like, expert, I don't know any kind of experts, people with advanced degrees.

She calls, um, she refers to them as educationalists.

Um, Yeah. So she would not be a huge, uh, huge fan of, of me and John. Okay. That's good to know.

it's really. to [00:34:00] avoid Amy's sister. Yeah.

Yeah, it's amazing. It's really like some of the stuff that, um, that she says, I'm like, wow, where's this coming from? Mostly Facebook is the answer.

yeah, so actually that's something that, um, that you highlight in this chapter too, and, you know, I think, like we all know that it's gotten worse with social media, but, um, but can you talk a little bit about just how much worse and how quickly and, um, and maybe even like.

I don't know. I, I feel like you get at this in a couple different ways in the chapter, but it, it, um, it's not just that social media has changed, you know, the infrastructure for information to move, but it's also changed, like, uh, how people think about information. You know.

um, how they, I don't know, like how, maybe how susceptible they are to climate misinformation.

Um, yeah. So what are some of the key things to look, [00:35:00] look out for there?

 So, I mean, social media is. Important, uh, because it is where most people get their information and spend a lot of their time. Now, uh, you know, traditional media, um, still matters. So not to say that, that people, uh, that, that, you know, people don't watch cable or don't watch evening news or don't read the newspaper, but their power, uh, is waning considerably.

And what we have instead is, you know, this very fragmented information landscape that, uh, includes all kinds of, uh, forms of delivering information. I mean, podcasts are big now, right? And, and some of the most important ways in which people get informed now, uh, and, and one that's, uh, growing in, in, in, uh, important.

Our, our podcast and, and you know, that's when [00:36:00] we see, uh, people like Joe Rogan, who have tremendous power and, and, and sway over, uh, people, not just in the United States, but all over the world. Um, and, and we have social media where, you know, people get to interact and see things in, in real time. And, uh, it's becoming very difficult to, um, consume news in a, in a way as, as a news consumer.

You're, your, your essentially, your job has gotten a lot harder over the years because if you just wanted to get reliable information 20, 30 years ago, you could just subscribe to a newspaper, uh, maybe a magazine, right? You would listen to, to like NPR or something. Uh, you had a few sources that, you know, uh, all, uh, adhere to.

Journalistic principles and, uh, delivered for the most part pretty, pretty [00:37:00] healthy information diet to you. Uh, now to curate that space for you is incredibly difficult because on social media, it, the burden falls on you to make, uh, a timeline on Facebook or on, on, uh, Twitter, uh, now x uh, uh, on, on TikTok to, to, to to control what you see and to, to create a space for you, uh, for yourself that is full of content that is coming from, uh, professionals who, who you trust, their kind of information gathering strategies, et cetera, right?

It's just very difficult for you to do, even if you want to be a responsible news consumers. It, it, it is a very tremendously difficult thing to do. And even if you try to spend time doing this, a lot of what you see. Isn't just what you want to see, right? Like it's not just the accounts you follow, A lot of it is algorithmically driven.

The algorithm is a black box, and [00:38:00] it's serving you content that is not necessarily having your best interests in mind, right? So I think social media are best understood in that space as. Uh, a place where misinformation can spread very, very fast and unchecked and can do a lot of damage before anybody can really do anything about it.

And that's assuming they wanna do something about it. Which, you know, uh, now, uh, what we know about major social media companies, uh, with, with Donald Trump, uh, in a, again, in the White House, uh, they're, they're previously held positions of trying to, to fact check and, and, and maybe, uh, halt the spread of this information.

Those commitments are no longer there, right? So, so it is a very difficult, I think, for you as a news consumer to, uh, to just operate in, in, out in the world right now because it's very time consuming. It's very difficult to curate a space [00:39:00] for yourself. Uh, and, uh, it's, it's really, it's really hard. Um.

Transcription

If you want to understand how misinformation works in general…and anyone who cares about democracy should right now…there’s no one better to talk to than researchers who have been studying climate misinformation for years. In today's episode, John Cook (University of Melbourne) and Dominik A. Stecuła (Colorado State University) join to walk us through everything the research is telling us so far. 

S14, Ep4 | The Media As a Tool of Climate Obstruction

S14, Ep3 | The Psychology of Misinformation: Why Does It Work So Well?

A true-crime podcast about climate change, hosted by investigative journalist Amy Westervelt. Listen here, or 

A true-crime podcast about climate change.

S14, Ep3 | The Psychology of Misinformation: Why Does It Work So Well?

About This Episode

Transcript

Next Up

S14, Ep4 | The Media As a Tool of Climate Obstruction