It’s easy for even the most informed reader to get lost in a flood of information about the climate crisis—especially when a decent chunk of it isn’t accurate. A new study published in the journal PLOS Climate highlights this problem: Analyzing 14 years of climate discussion on Reddit, the authors found that only 4% of in-post links and just 6.5% of comments actually pointed back to scientific sources. Instead, most online conversations favored references to mass media, newspapers, and social platforms, which can often lack nuance and drown out the core scientific data.
Addressing the climate crisis requires a public that understands the science and can separate facts from flashy headlines. But, with misinformation running rampant and research often difficult to understand and hard to access, what’s a climate-conscious reader to do? Beef up your B.S. detector with a better understanding of how to spot trustworthy sourcing. Here, with the help of that study’s authors and other climate communication experts, we break down the signs of good—and not-so-good—sources.
Red flags
It relies on generative AI
Earlier this year, a Global Witness investigation found that greenwashing and “bothsidesism” were omnipresent in chatbots’ answers about climate. When researchers grilled OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Meta’s MetaAI, X’s Grok, and Google’s Gemini on the matter, they received positive narratives about Big Oil, with little to no mention of climate setbacks like BP’s retracted 2050 net-zero pledge. These bots also often place a lot of weight on fossil fuel companies’ mitigation efforts, despite overwhelming evidence of the companies’ outsized role in creating the problem.
It flips basic scientific consensus
It doesn’t matter if it’s a social media post, podcast, book, or news article, if a source flies against a scientific consensus—like the facts that human-caused climate change is happening or that the burning of fossil fuels is a primary culprit—it’s pretty much hogwash. While there is legitimate debate in the scientific community about what responses to climate change are most suitable, says Cassandra L.C. Troy, a journalism professor at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, if a source denies the basics, it isn’t reliable.
It uses unattributed data
For Allison Agsten, inaugural director of USC’s Annenberg Center for Climate Journalism and Communication, data with no clear sourcing should always be approached with a healthy dose of skepticism. “If I am inclined to reshare, I do my due diligence,” she says. If you can’t hunt down the original source, it’s a sign to not repost that story.
It’s engineered to make you angry
Social media (and sometimes media in general) is more often motivated by clicks than accuracy, says Yelena Mejova, a co-author of the recent Reddit study. She adds that you should be especially wary if a message “makes you mad and gives you the urge to quickly reshare it.” When something does grab your attention, Troy says to take a moment and consider why. “Is it conspiratorial? Does it rely on shock and anger? Does it offer one simple explanation or solution for an incredibly complex issue?” she says. “If so, you should consider avoiding this particular source altogether.”
Green flags
It quotes academic experts in climate-related fields
A quick way to tell if a news article is trustworthy? Look at who they quote. Experts are reliable because they have gained deep knowledge about a topic through education, training, and/or work experience, says Troy. They can understand the scientific evidence and distill complex information. But just because someone has a Ph.D. in their bio doesn’t mean they’re right about everything. Someone may have expertise-informed views in one, but not all, areas. A well-respected nutritionist commenting on energy policy isn’t the same as a policy expert, notes Troy.
It is transparent and factual
Whenever NPR highlights a story about Google, good or bad, its reporters are quick to note that Google is a financial supporter of their organization. That transparency is vital. Trustworthy sources should be upfront about their backers—whether funding, memberships, or partnerships. If this information is vague or hard to find, it’s reason enough to question a source’s reliability. Kathryn Thier, a postdoctoral research fellow in the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, suggests always checking if an outlet discloses its funders and decision-makers. Good outlets have nothing to hide.
It’s recommended by people you trust
If you’re unsure about an outlet, it’s great practice to check a site like Media Bias Fact-Check (MBFC), which Mejova used in her study, to see how experts rate outlets’ bias, factual accuracy, and credibility. Other groups, such as the Society of Environmental Journalists and the Center for Climate Journalism and Communication offer vetted lists of mainstream and specialty environmental outlets.
Choose a couple trustworthy sources for news and then go to them rather than putting all your faith in having an algorithm bring noteworthy information to you, suggests Troy. “This could mean reading a couple news apps, listening to a couple podcasts, or watching a couple news segments regularly.” Bonus: A more streamlined media diet will likely equal a happier, better informed you.