37. Is Climate Change Human-Caused? Science, Misinformation & Media with Amy Westervelt

In this continuation of her conversation with award-winning climate journalist Amy Westervelt, Dr. Anikó breaks down one of the most misunderstood questions of our time: Is climate change actually human-caused and why is there still so much confusion about the answer?

Together, they unpack the science behind climate change in plain language, explain how greenhouse gases amplify natural climate patterns, and reveal how fossil fuel companies and media systems have intentionally distorted public understanding for decades.

This episode goes beyond headlines. Amy shares real-world reporting from wildfires, hurricanes, air-pollution health crises, and global climate displacement to show how climate change isn’t abstract it’s already reshaping lives, health outcomes, and entire communities.

They also explore how misinformation spreads, how journalism differs from opinion, and what listeners can look for to identify trustworthy sources in an era of outrage-driven media.

Episode Highlights:

02:10 – Is climate change human-caused and how natural patterns and human activity coexist

04:20 – How greenhouse gases amplify droughts, floods, heat, and extreme weather

07:15 – Air pollution, particulate matter, and the real health impacts of climate change

10:45 – The hidden benefits of climate action and why walkable cities trigger backlash

14:30 – Why wildfires behave differently now and what climate change has altered

18:20 – Climate change as a force multiplier alongside development and infrastructure

22:40 – Hurricanes, power outages, and how climate disasters compound over time

26:30 – Climate migration and what happens when places become uninhabitable

30:10 – Ocean currents, food systems, and risks to global agriculture

33:50 – Why scientists overwhelmingly agree on climate change

41:10 – How climate change became framed as a political issue

45:00 – The difference between journalism, opinion pieces, and propaganda

49:30 – How to recognize misinformation and bad sources

58:40 – Why hopelessness benefits powerful industries

1:02:30 – What individuals can realistically do about climate change

If you want this tightened further (fewer timestamps, or adjusted to exact edit points), I recommend trimming to ~10 chapters for Apple Podcasts — happy to do that next.

This conversation is honest, grounded, and deeply human. It offers clarity without fear-mongering and empowers listeners to engage with climate information thoughtfully, critically, and with agency.

Learn more about Amy Westervelt:

Website: https://www.amywestervelt.com/

Podcast: https://drilled.media/podcasts/drilled

Award-winning climate journalist, author, and host of Drilled and Hot Take

Connect with Dr. Anikó:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/dr.aniko/

Website: https://www.draniko.com/

Thank you for listening to Nourished with Dr. Anikó! 

It would mean the world if you would take one minute to follow, leave a 5 star review and share with those you love! 

Your presence is truly felt and deeply appreciated.

Disclaimer:
The content of this podcast is for informational and entertainment purposes only and does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. The views expressed are those of the host and guests and do not substitute for professional medical advice. Always seek the guidance of your physician or other qualified healthcare provider with any questions you may have regarding your health or a medical condition. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay seeking it because of something you heard on this podcast.

Transcript

Dr. Anikó: Hello. Hello y'all and welcome back to Nourished with Dr. Aniko. This week we are continuing our conversation with award-winning veteran climate journalist and my very dear friend, Amy Westervelt. If you haven't heard last week's episode yet, please go back and give it a listen. It's where we started our conversation about long-term friendship, climate, and then the [00:01:00] origins, the spread, and the power of misinformation.

It's a really eye-opening and believe it or not, really fun conversation. So this week we are jumping back in. I hope you enjoy.

You are such, such an expert on the climate world. Can you just lay it out like what the facts are? 

Amy Westervelt: Yeah. 

Dr. Anikó: About climate? Is it human caused? 

Amy Westervelt: Yes. 

Dr. Anikó: Amy Westville on the record. Well, we 

Amy Westervelt: are, there has of course always been natural fluctuations in climate and there are patterns that we do not have innate control over.

However, when you add large concentrations of greenhouse gases, so this is carbon dioxide, methane, there are a few others, but the big ones are carbon dioxide and methane to that naturally occurring pattern. It makes it worse. It exacerbates it. It's like, you know, if you add salt to something that's already salty, it makes it too salty.

Dr. Anikó: Right? 

Amy Westervelt: That's what we're doing [00:02:00] to the atmosphere. Um, so like. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. You know, like the, the idea of like natural patterns and human involvement are not mutually exclusive. Um, we have been significantly changing the atmosphere for decades now. There's been more CO2 released in the last 40 years than the previous entire existence of humans.

Um, so like even just on the face of it, it's like obviously there's gonna be some impact from that, right? Right. Greenhouse 

Dr. Anikó: gases, 

Amy Westervelt: they're greenhouse. And even on top of that, I like to always remind people that like greenhouse gases are not emitted in isolation. They come with. Particulate matter and volatile organic compounds.

These are the components of air pollution. so like even if you're like, whatever, the atmosphere can heal itself, which a lot of [00:03:00] people believe it's not true. It cannot, I mean, it can over time if you stop jumping more crap into it. But like, if you continue to dump the crap in, it's not going to, um, you know, particulate matter is like one of the lar like leading killers of people today.

You can look at, I saw this like really disturbing image from a report recently where they showed an, and I actually think this was really smart 'cause they just showed a lung, not the person. 'cause I'm like, I'm like, you know, the, the sad, sad truth is that. If the person that you show who like has lung disease or is dying from something related to air pollution is not part of the identity group of whoever is looking at it, they are much less likely to think that that will affect them to have empathy for that person or whatever.

But if it's a human lung, we all are like, oh crap, that could be my lung. You know? So I saw this, [00:04:00] this like side by side picture. It was like the lung of a 70-year-old man who has emphysema and is a lifelong smoker next to the lung of a 10-year-old boy who has lived, um, near a freeway for all of his life.

Right. They looked the exact same, and I was like, that is so unfair. That is so disgusting and unfair to that poor kid. I don't care what the outside of him looks like. Yeah, I, people shouldn't care anyway, but like, you know, but yeah, it's like, it doesn't matter if it's, you know, a kid like the, because I think people do trick themselves into being like, well, well sure.

That kid in Bangladesh where the air quality is really bad. That's too bad. But it's like, 'cause that wouldn't happen here or whatever. It's like, no, this amount of particulate matter exposure, which like is increasing right now, is going to lead to, you know, premature deaths to, [00:05:00] um, all kind and all kinds of like, painful health issues along the way as well.

Um, so it's not like it's, I don't know, I feel like a lot of times. For whatever reason, like the oil companies have been very good at positioning climate action as being, you know, this huge economic disaster for people and you're not gonna, you're gonna be like living in the dark and the cold and not being able to eat and you know, all of this stuff.

Right. You know, there are actually so many co-benefits of dealing with this problem too. It's like cleaner air, cleaner water, 

Dr. Anikó: better 

Amy Westervelt: food, better food, if everyone, there was this really wild, to me, backlash to the idea of that was proposed in Europe last year. I think it was last year, maybe two years ago.

There was this 15 minute cities idea, and the idea was like, oh, wouldn't it be cool if we planned out cities so that you could walk within 15 minutes to everything you need to do in your life. Like you could see your friend, you could go to work, [00:06:00] you could go to the grocery store, you could see your doctor, and, and you could just walk to all of it and like whatever.

Somehow the backlash to that was this bizarre conspiracy theory that like people that like effectively the city planners were trying to create like concentration camps and like trap people in their neighborhood and not allow them to like go anywhere. And that it was like big brother taking over and all of this stuff.

And I was like, what? Like, but you know, if you're really worried about people starting to think about the co-benefits of reducing, driving, reducing energy use that it's actually, oh, I would get exercise. I would, you know, be outside more. I would spend less of my time in traffic. Like, I was like, wow, like who is like, I want the freedom to sit in traffic.

You 

Dr. Anikó: know? Or even like, just the, the way [00:07:00] that we are being. Kind of coaxed and pushed both by our own neurobiology and by these companies to spending all of our time on screens. Yes. And devices. Like there are many, many industries and groups that don't want us walking around outside, you know, because it's less money for them.

So when you think about like, which groups wouldn't want people 

Amy Westervelt: who's benefiting 

Dr. Anikó: from this? Who's benefiting 

Amy Westervelt: Exactly. 

Dr. Anikó: Who's 

Amy Westervelt: benefiting, exactly. Yes. Yeah. So anyway, to get back to the basics on climate, look, you put this stuff in the atmosphere, eventually it does exacerbate whatever is going on naturally.

So that means if it was gonna rain, it's gonna rain. More rain. If there was already drought, it's gonna be a worse drought. It's a, it's um, what do they call that? Like 

an 

Dr. Anikó: amplifying effect. 

Amy Westervelt: It's an amplifier. Exactly. Exactly. It's not that. 'cause, and I, I blame climate folks for this sometimes too, that like.

I think sometimes in the, in like [00:08:00] in opposition to, it's not real, it's not happening or whatever, people have the urge to like oversimplify in the reverse and be like, climate change caused that fire. No, that's not how it works. Climate change exacerbated the conditions that led to that fire. I realize that's like a more complicated message, but that's what's happening.

It's like, yeah, if you. And, you know, climate change isn't happening in isolation. So like we have development policies that are not great, we're like encroaching into forests too much. You have like, you have not enough buffer between natural spaces and housing. You're not maintaining forests the way that you should be.

You're allowing electrical lines to age without maintenance. All of those things Yes. Are all happening. And you've got excessive drought and excessive heat, which means that it's, if that thing sparks, it's gonna keep going for a long time. Or like, like I interviewed, um, uh, a fire. ' chief in California. This is actually a good, um, [00:09:00] misinformation and media story too.

I interviewed this guy. I got sent, this is the last time I covered a fire. 'cause I was like, I, I don't like. I cannot show up on someone's worst day and be a journalist instead of a human. Like, I don't have that in me. You know? Like I was working, I was a stringer for the Washington Post. They sent me to do this, to cover the fire that happened in Santa Rosa.

This is like maybe 20 15, 20 16. And I went and I went to the Walmart parking lot, which like if you have never covered a natural disaster, you may not know that the Walmart parking lot is like where everything gets triaged when there's a fire or flood or what. I don't know why. I dunno what deal Walmart has with fema.

But, but you always go to the Walmart parking lot. Like this is something that like, 

Dr. Anikó: oh no. Now, like the conspiracy theories about Walmart being behind, I know like all the disasters is Oh, 

Amy Westervelt: it's them. Yes. So I mean, I think it's because they have a lot of space in the, a bottled water, you know? [00:10:00] 

Dr. Anikó: Yes. It's logistic, calm 

Amy Westervelt: on everyone.

Yes. Um, so I went to the Walmart parking lot and, you know, talked to like all of the, the fire people and the FEMA people were like setting up their cart tables, intake and, you know, all of this. And I saw this woman because my editor was like, yeah, like maybe you can talk to people, like get some color, like talk to people who were like fleeing the fire, you know?

Um, and this is why journalists get like a bad rap. But anyway, um, I, I saw this woman who just looked totally dazed and she had a little like maybe 18 month kid with her in a very soggy diaper toddling around just the diaper. That's it. She looked totally dazed and I said, you know, hi, like, I'm from the Washington Post.

Do you think I could talk to you like once you're finished or whatever? And she said, yeah, sure. And then she told me she had literally like grabbed her baby from the crib and run out of the house and then like, you know, Florida with fire on both sides of the highway. And she left [00:11:00] without anything. And um, after I kind of interviewed her, I said, oh, how old is your kid?

And she said, 18 months. And I said, oh, my, youngest had just turned two or something like that. She grabbed my arm and she said, do you happen to have any like clothes or diapers or anything in your car? 'cause I left with nothing. Like, I have nothing. I don't even have my purse to go in and like buy stuff at Walmart.

I have nothing. And, um, the, the rule in that situation, if you're a journalist is to say, no, I'm sorry. Like, I can't, I don't wanna get involved, dah, dah, dah, whatever. Right? But I was like, yeah, I definitely have diapers and clothes in my, I was like, yes. I actually just cleaned out like all of my diapers and clothes from my kid.

Like, you, you can have all of it. She was like, oh my God. Like, thank you so much, blah, blah, blah. And I had to like, disclose it to my editor and we went back and forth of like, whether that meant I couldn't quote her or whatever, you know? Um, but I also, in that story, I talked to the Cal [00:12:00] Fire Chief and he was like, he gave me the best, just like the best explanation of the, the role that climate change plays in like mega fires, right?

He said, look like you grew up in California, right? I said, sure. And he said, you remember we've always had big fires, right? Like we've always had mega fires. Yes. He's like, but when you were a kid, like you would go to, it'd be really bad, and then you'd go to bed and you'd wake up and a lot of times it would be a lot better, right?

And I said, yeah, actually that was the way it worked. It'd be like 0% contained. You'd wake up in the morning and it'd be like, okay, 50% contained on the road. He said, right, that's because it used to get cooler and have higher humidity at night. So nighttime was when we would get on top of fires. It's when it's like always been that way.

I've been a fireman in California for 30 years. It's always been that way, but now. We don't it, it's the same temperature and the same dryness all throughout the day. So we don't [00:13:00] have that buffer anymore. And that's climate change. And I was like, oh, thank you so great. And I put his whole quote in my story and my editor wanted to delete the part where he said, that's climate change.

And his comment was, this is a fire story, not a politics story. And I was like, what? He's like, and this guy's not a climate scientist, so like blah, blah, blah. And I, I, I knew enough because I'd been a climate reporter to be like, that is literally like a fossil fuel talking point to, to like claim that anything anyone says about climate is inherently political, is, you know, an industry talking point, whatever.

And I. Push back and he let me keep it in the story and whatever, but like the average person that's getting sent out to cover a fire is not gonna, you know, the national editor of the Washington Post tells them to cut something from a quote, they're gonna cut it, you know? Um. So, yeah. But yeah, to me I'm like, [00:14:00] that's, it's a force multiplier.

It makes droughts worse. It makes, you know, precipitation heavier. It, it changes messes with like the, um, currents and the ocean and with, um, even like wind currents. So like with this whole thing in California, what was happening, the reason that the ocean was warmer was not just that like the weather was warmer, it was that you weren't getting what they call mixing, which is where the currents mix the deep water, ocean up with the ocean higher up.

And that's what actually keeps the ocean temperatures like kind of steady, is that you have this mixing happening because of the currents, 'cause of the wind, climate change is affecting that. So you're getting this like stagnation where it's staying warmer for like further down in the, the ocean. It's that kind of stuff, you know, and it's like.

People. So when people are like, we've always had floods, we've always had fires, we've always had hurricanes. Yes. But we haven't had [00:15:00] this intensity over and over and over and over again. And that's the thing that's getting worse. And that's why people say like, oh, it's, it's like hard to survive because, you know, you think about it like, we've seen it in California this past year.

Fires followed by mudslides when rain season comes, right? People getting evacuated and then they don't come back. Or you know, there I, there are all of these like. Compounding crises, or people call it the poly crisis too, where I did some reporting of Puerto Rico year two, three years after Hurricane Maria, people still didn't have regular access to water or reliable electricity.

So then, or like even within. The first few months of Hurricane Maria, people lost electricity for long periods of time. Well, what do you do if you're on dialysis? What do you do? There was one woman I talked to, it was heartbreaking. She's like, yeah, my dad [00:16:00] was just about to start cancer treatment when Hurricane Maria hit.

So then he couldn't start it for like six months and by the time he started it, it was too late for the treatment to do anything. That kind of stuff is happening more and more and more and more and it's compounding and then you know, it's driving migration, which is causing all kinds of other problems as well.

It just all kind of mixes together. It's all, and like the impact on agriculture too, like I just was reading something about they, there's a thing called it Atlantic Meridian something collapse. One of the big currents, I can't remember. This is why also I'm like, it's. I like talking to people in like a more casual way about it too, because it's like, okay, you don't have to be a scientist to understand what's going on here.

You know, like it's, there's one of the, the main currents in the Atlantic Ocean is an at threat of collapsing, which means like, that current goes away entirely. So like, [00:17:00] you know, at first blush people might kind of be like, eh, whatever, who cares? Right? Okay. But that means that you're gonna lose entire species of fish.

You're gonna have a huge, and you're gonna have a huge impact on agriculture. People go agriculture. Why? Well, the currents in the ocean aren't, don't just impact the ocean. It, that those are like wind currents that affect precipitation patterns as well. So what people are predicting with that collapse, if that happens, it would take out conservatively 40% of the wheat in the world.

That's like a freaking large number. And if you think about all the things that have wheat in it, I know everyone's gluten-free now, but like, you know, um, that's a huge impact even on, you know, and then that impacts other, you know, there are many other like crops that are related and it's just all of these, again, like we're talking about [00:18:00] the ecosystem being something that is all interconnected.

All all of these things are, are impacting each other. And then, yeah, you've got all of these human things coming into play too, where it's like, you know, someone's house gets flooded from, uh, you know, a once in a generation storm that happened two years in a row and then they can't afford to repair it.

And then the this, and they get, you know, it's like you see how easily how these things. Compound. Um, yeah, I just watched this new, I have a, I have a Netflix recommendation for you. I watched a, um, a Danish show that's called Families like Ours, and the premise of the show is that basically the country of Denmark has just decided to like shut down and move everyone because sea level rise has gotten so bad that they're just like, we can't just like keep paying for these things forever.

Like, it's just, we're just like becoming an [00:19:00] inhabitable. We would rather spend all of our money on like relocating everyone in the country to other places, and then we're gonna turn the country of Denmark into like the world's largest wind farm. So that's like the premise of the show, but you just, it's so interesting 'cause it's, first of all, it's like a wealthy Danish family that you're following and you see how like all of a sudden this just tips everything for them.

Like now they are struggling financially, they're not super welcome everywhere. Like the French are all like, Ooh Danes, get out of here. You know?

Um, yeah. It's fascinating. It's fascinating. It's, but it's a really, I loved it 'cause I was like, oh my gosh, this is so helpful for people to see how easy it would be for all of these things to unravel and how quickly that could happen. Um, 

Dr. Anikó: yeah. It's the imagining [00:20:00] into, I agree. I think just the way that photography can sort of change the opinion of an entire nation about like a war in the past or, you know, like that, that art is so important to help us imagine into like, what would that actually be like?

Yes. And that emotional experience, like you were talking about with the lungs, that like, if somebody maybe doesn't look like you, it's harder to imagine that that could be you. Like, yes. To, to really take in all these stories and, and really feel what it would be like to have that happen to you, you know?

And that, that's a deep motivator because, you know, CO2 greenhouse gases, like you said, can't, 

Amy Westervelt: it's so abstract, 

Dr. Anikó: abstract to a lot of people. Right. For scientists, it's not abstract. Yeah. 

Amy Westervelt: Yeah. 

Dr. Anikó: But that we do need that grounding in, in the possibilities and the truth, because to be clear, yeah. The science world is not divided on whether, oh, 

Amy Westervelt: yeah, I forgot to address that.

The science scientists are not [00:21:00] remotely divided on this. There is a very small group of scientists who are, you know, contrarians who, um. You know, disputes, they're almost all physicists. I don't know what the heck's going on with physicists, but they, you know, they dispute how the majority of other scientists have interpreted some of the data.

Um, they, they will like quibble with, um, the idea that too much CO2 is even bad. 'cause they'll say like, oh, well it, it grows more plants or whatever. Like, there's one guy who has argued that this current collapse will actually be good for different economies. There's always someone who's like, I don't know what about this?

You know, and, but a thing that I think people don't understand is that like, that is how science works. That is very much how science works. The fact that like some people disagree. You can't find anything that all scientists would agree on. You can't get like five physicists in a room [00:22:00] and get them to all agree that gravity exists.

Like it's not like it's super, super, super common for there to be ongoing debates in science. But like the, also the way it works is that once, like 70% or more and it, and on climate, it's like over 95% now. Agree. Then like that's the scientific consensus. That's what we're going with for now. That's what like what we're basing things on for now.

If we get information that dramatically contradicts it, then we cha we adapt and change. But all that's happened in the last 40 years is every single thing that has happened is exactly what the climate models predicted, including the climate models of the oil companies themselves, which were by far the most accurate by the way.

Like they very accurately predicted exactly what's happening now. I mean, down to. They've predicted like what's happened with droughts, what's happened with floods? What's happened with fires. They predicted the exact [00:23:00] concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, like exact, um, so, and they have, what possible motive would oil company scientists have to overstate this problem, like zero, you know, 

Dr. Anikó: and then, and then hide it.

And then hide it all, 

Amy Westervelt: and then, and then hide it. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. It's just like, it's, um, yeah. So the, the science is very, very clear that if we don't reduce the amount of CO2 emissions. In particular, but also methane emissions in the atmosphere. There will be more and more problems. There's, I, I really feel like the, the, um, the best like proof point of this is that Exxon and a lot of the other oil companies too, have now really been pushing this idea that like, it's not about fossil fuels, it's about emissions.

All we have to do is deal with the emissions because they are trying to sell people on the idea that it, that you can just. [00:24:00] Remove the CO2 emissions from the fossil fuel. And then there's no longer a problem with oil. And I, I'm like, that kind of tells you everything you need to know about how much they themselves know that the science is true.

Because they're like, oh, right, we can just make it about this thing. 

Dr. Anikó: Yeah. It's like first step, it's not happening. Just deny it. Second step. I mean, it is happening and there's all this proof that we knew that it was happening, but it's not us, right? It's not the CO2 that we're making. And then now the next step is like, but we'll just take the CO2 out.

That has nothing to do with what's happening. You know? Like it. Yes, it's very smart. It's very, very smart. 

Amy Westervelt: It's really smart and they have a lot of money and they have a lot of influence over a lot of different governments. This is the thing that people don't always grasp too, is like these are, these companies, a lot of these global companies are way more powerful than any one government because they have direct influence over [00:25:00] multiple governments at once, which also gives them influence over international processes that are happening, Yeah. And, and they have said that like there's um, there's this book called Private Empire by a guy named Steve Call. He works for the New Yorker, and he was teaching at Columbia Journalism School for a long time too. He is a really good writer, and he wrote this book about Exxon called Private Empire.

And he looks at this and he, and he told me directly that he has reported on the CIA, the Taliban, uh, like multiple different narco terrorist groups. And he said the scariest, the most scared he's ever been was doing a book about Exxon because they had so much power. So that's interesting. But then also he, he has this scene in his book where Lee Raymond, who was the CEO of Exxon at the time, is like at a conference and he is asked by someone, you know, would Exxon consider in increasing the volume [00:26:00] of, um, oil that you're refining and like getting to gas stations to help American consumers out with the price of gas.

And he's just like, why would I do that? Um, they're like, well, 'cause you're an American company. And like, you know, and he is like, I'm not an American company. I'm a global oil company. And I was like, I wish that we would remember that when everybody thinks we need to protect them all the time. That like, that's the thinking is like, 

Dr. Anikó: yeah, 

Amy Westervelt: we, they don't have any allegiance to any particular country or group of people or whatever.

Like they have allegiance to their shareholders and their only obligation is to return as much money as possible to those shareholders. And it really, because they'd been questioned too about the fact that they were, Exxon was super involved with Equatorial Guinea at a time when they were murdering citizens and you know, there was a very [00:27:00] violent dictator in charge and whatever, and they got asked about a lot.

Like why they were propping up this dictator and dah, dah, dah, and they're just like, yeah, we don't care who's in charge. Like we're there for the oil. So we'll work with whatever government is there so that we can get the oil and then we sell it. Like that's how our business works. And I don't even really blame them for it.

It's like, well, that is how their business works. And that is how business works in general. It's the job of governments to put guardrails in to protect their citizens. It's not actually Exxon's job 

Dr. Anikó: and their resources, their 

Amy Westervelt: citizens, the government's job. 

Dr. Anikó: Yeah. 

Amy Westervelt: Yes. And their resource 

Dr. Anikó: and their resources and their ecosystems and their planet.

You know? 

Amy Westervelt: Yes. 

Dr. Anikó: You would hope that businesses would want to do that, but we have been shown time and time again that that's not the case. And I do think it's really like what you were saying about how there's always contrarians. And when we talked before about this episode, you were talking about how.

These industries have [00:28:00] really weaponized how the scientific community talks to one another. Yes. And have weaponized the general public's kind of lack of understanding of the scientific method to misinform the public. Yeah. So, you know, any study there will be a margin of uncertainty, right? There is no study that can be like a hundred percent this is true.

And you just basically prove it's true by your, you know, how many people you pick. You just make it more and more likely that these results didn't happen by accident, and then you replicate it and replicate it and replicate it. And that as far as like a lay person is concerned means it's real. Like it's, it's almost impossible that it would be not real.

And yet in science we say like, you can't say with a hundred percent certainty. You 

Amy Westervelt: can 

Dr. Anikó: never say that's how science works. But then that's 

Amy Westervelt: also how science research gets funded. It's like you have to end the study with more, more research is needed so that you can apply for your next research grant. You know, like 

Dr. Anikó: fair, fair.

But also just like needing to replicate it to really show just like how all this climate [00:29:00] research has been replicated, the things that they predicted back in the eighties has come true. Like this is real stuff. But also that when you have that scientific sort of responsible acknowledgement that nothing is a hundred percent certain that gets exploited and weaponized and been like, see, see, 

Amy Westervelt: yes, 

Dr. Anikó: the scientists aren't, aren't certain.

And you're like, 

Amy Westervelt: they're not even sure. Why should he believe anything? Blah, blah, blah. Yes. 

Dr. Anikó: You know? 

Amy Westervelt: Yes. 

Dr. Anikó: Um, well, and I think too that, you know, living in a world where you're being told that it, it's out of your control, you can't do anything to Yes. Change the outcome of literally your planet, your life source, and it has nothing to do with what you're doing.

You can't do anything about it. That's a really hopeless place. Yeah. That serves these industries that seemingly don't really care if there's a future planet Earth or not. I mean, by their 

Amy Westervelt: actions. 

Dr. Anikó: Yeah. It seems like they don't. Yeah. But I think realizing that yes, this is happening. [00:30:00] Yes. A large portion of it is due to our actions.

It's not that we wouldn't have fires or floods or hurricanes without this. Yeah. We wouldn't have this level of extreme weather Yeah. Without this. Right. A once in a generation hurricane is supposed to happen once in a generation, not like every year, you know? Yeah. Um, I think it's really empowering, like not just that anger of like, how dare you?

How could you have kept all this information from us? I'm mad about it, and like, let's go do something about it, because just sitting here being like, well, I guess we'll just wait till the world ends is a terrible feeling. 

Amy Westervelt: Yes. Yes. 

Dr. Anikó: That only helps these industries that have been spreading this misinformation very, very intentionally and have been eroding our trust in actual experts very, very intentionally and then conveniently.

Mm-hmm. Also sort of placing their own quote unquote experts that just happen to agree with everything Yes. That they want them to say yes. But this feels like a really powerful place, right? Because I feel like a lot of times we [00:31:00] talk about climate and people are like, well, that's depressing, but it's only depressing if you're left with this feeling that you can't do anything about it.

And we can, we can vote. You know, even though climate, climate isn't political, right? Like the earth doesn't care who you vote for, right? But the outcome of our existence on the earth, it will matter what policies are in place if they protect our planet or not. Yeah. It'll either be an inhabitable place for us or not.

Yeah. But that in itself isn't political. It's just like how. The world works. That's just true. Like that's just how science, that's just facts. That's just facts. You know? There are things that we can do that will make it easier for us to continue living here. And there's things we can do that'll make it harder.

That's not politics. Yeah. That's just like information, you know? It's 

Amy Westervelt: just information. And the thing too, like a, another thing I see all the time is that, um, like I think Ted Cruz was getting in on this recently and I see it everywhere where people will say like, oh, well what about, uh, rare earth minerals and [00:32:00] mining for lithium and solar panels aren't a hundred percent green and land use related to solar and wind farms and all of that stuff.

And yes, there are issues. Listen, any large scale energy project is going to have an impact on the environment that it is built in. And I don't think that environmentalists have done themselves any favors pretending otherwise. You know, like if you have a grid scale, solar farm. In your neighborhood. Yeah.

I can imagine that might not be the most pleasant thing to drive by every year. Or same with a utility scale wind farm. But the problem is that people are thinking that the choice is between that. And nothing but somehow magically endless energy with no impact, when in reality it's that, or an oil refinery that, okay, like might not be in your neighborhood, but is in someone's [00:33:00] neighborhood and is causing a lot more problems, not only locally with what it's spewing out of its smokestacks, but also globally with climate change and all of this other stuff.

So I think it's like this, again, it's this like individual versus community thing where it's like, yeah, okay. Like people need to understand that there are these trade-offs and that if we wanna protect everyone, then sometimes some of us, and hopefully it ends up being a little more fairly distributed, are inconvenienced.

Dr. Anikó: Mm-hmm. 

Amy Westervelt: I mean, like. Oh, sorry. Sorry. Go. I 

Dr. Anikó: was just gonna say, it's either a wind farm or an oil refinery. Right? Like, it's not, like nothing, it's not 

Amy Westervelt: like, 

Dr. Anikó: it's 

Amy Westervelt: not exactly, 

 or a lot of people will, will argue like, we should be doing more around nuclear energy and like, you know, there, there are some like debates about, okay, but we haven't really figured out what do we actually do with nuclear waste. That's a question [00:34:00] that has not been figured out despite a lot of propaganda to the contrary.

Um, but I'm like, okay, well then fine. Like, let's shut down the oil majors and invest in nuclear. Oh, no, no, no, no. That's not what I'm suggesting. It's like, okay, well. Um, like it's very, um, disingenuous A lot of times. I think the, the amount that like oil executives in particular will, will kind of say the like, what about nuclear thing?

I'm like, great. Yeah, fine. Let's do it. Let's do that. And solar and wind and all of it. All of the things that are not fossil fuels. 

Dr. Anikó: Yeah. 

Amy Westervelt: You know, and they're like, 

Dr. Anikó: oh, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. 

Amy Westervelt: You know, 

Dr. Anikó: a not get carried away. Amy help lot mam. 

Amy Westervelt: Yeah. But yeah, I just, I don't totally, 

Dr. Anikó: again, the overlap is just like, as you know more, you do better, you know, as you know better, you do better.

Yeah. Which applies to science too, and all of those things. But I did really [00:35:00] specifically want to talk to you about how to recognize and seek out. Real good sources, journalism, good sources, and if there's any sort of like things to look for, like this is good journalism if.do and like this could be misinformation and propaganda if you know, dot if 

Amy Westervelt: blah, blah, blah.

Yeah, totally. Well, a I always am like I if to the extent possible, like follow the money if there's like, if something is like, you know, funded directly by X, Y, Z, then you know, I'm always like suspicious of like wherever people get their money from. So I always tell people to look for that. But also like, okay if people are, um, if like things are being very obviously fact checked and cited and sourced.

So like for example, when, whenever I'm like writing a story, you know, I always. You know, quote the person link to a primary document. I [00:36:00] actually try to footnote stuff as much as possible. We do that for fact checking anyways, and I've started like leaving it in stories so that people can go to the original source themselves, but to the, like, as much as possible if people are showing their work, and you can clearly see that like, oh, okay, they talked to a bunch of people, they got information from all these places.

They're giving me access to that same information so that I can go and make my own decisions about it. Like, that is what journalism looks like. It is not, you know, a single anonymous source. Like who you know is, is has like a very, um, passionate conspiracy theory about something. And that is the only source of the information.

Um, if it's like a scientific thing, I'm always like, okay, like. Was it peer reviewed? And there have been various attempts to try to like undermine the peer review process too. People are like, [00:37:00] oh, it's elitist and it's gatekeeping and this, and we go, okay, look, there are few. Processes that are going to kick the tires harder on a scientific, a piece of scientific research than the peer review process.

If someone is able to, you know, get through the peer review process through like favors or friends or whatever, like once or twice the, i, the, the likelihood of someone being able to do that over the course of their career is very, very, very low. Um, so if there's someone, you know, if, if someone is consistently referencing research that's not peer reviewed, it's just like a white paper from somewhere, um, or that's just like someone's opinion but nobody else agrees with it or whatever, that I, you know, I'm always a little skeptical, which is not to say that like, we should never consider new ideas or, you know, whatever.

It's just like, okay, I have a little bit like more skepticism. Um. If someone is [00:38:00] putting out an extraordinary volume of stuff, there is no way that they're doing their due diligence on that. People who are showing their work super thorough. Like thorough. It doesn't have to be long to be thorough, but I think you can see like, okay, this is like citing a lot of different things.

There are links to original, you know, research or documents. There's a variety of types of sources that are being quoted in this. They're talking about fact checking or they're showing the work. They're correcting things when corrections are needed. Um, all of, yeah, all of that. And then I do think that unfortunately people have a hard time spotting the difference between opinion and reporting.

And so like, if there's. Uh, like a lot of declaratory sentences and a lot of like, this is, this is what's happening and this is, that's usually [00:39:00] opinion. Um, most reporters are, and sometimes even just for legal reasons, are pretty hesitant in the same way that scientists are very hesitant to be like, this is the truth.

The truth. We're just sort of like, these are the facts that we know. So if anyone is saying like, and this is how to interpret it, that's an opinion. 

Dr. Anikó: Mm-hmm. 

Amy Westervelt: Um, this is what I think if there's a lot of I statements, all of that stuff, it's like, okay, that's an opinion piece. It should be labeled as such. It isn't always, um.

And like, I think honestly like the, the best example I've seen lately, like it's in some ways very helpful that this happened, that Barry Weiss got put in charge of CBS news because that is someone who has zero experience as a reporter or doing journalism. She's only ever done opinion and it's really showing like she, the first thing that happened was like.

Uh, a 60 minutes thing that [00:40:00] was kind of critical of Trump aired and, you know, every, and the guy who owns Paramount now was like, oh, like, you know, she was tricked and whatever. And it's like, um, well, a, like, she shouldn't be able to stop something that's critical of the administration from running. That's not how it works.

But also I'm like, oh, it's because she doesn't actually know how newsrooms work. So she wouldn't, she didn't, she wouldn't know, like the questions to ask them, you know. And then the second thing that happened was that she shut down a piece that was on the prison in El Salvador that a lot of people are being sent to from the us.

And, um, her reasoning was that the reporters had not gotten a comment from the administration and that therefore the piece couldn't run. And the reporters who I, I mean. This has been very amusing. 'cause the reporters at [00:41:00] 60 Minutes are some of like the most seasoned reporters out there. So they're just like running circles around this person all the time.

They were like, ready because they, they like suspected this was gonna happen and they were ready to, like a, someone leaked the full thing online, so it's everywhere. And B, they had a rebuttal for like, everything they knew she was gonna say where they were. They were like, we went to the administration multiple times.

We went to this person, this person, this person. Like the fact that someone says no comment, which we included that. They said, no comment. That is a comment in and of itself that is not like we didn't give them an opportunity to respond, which is what she was kind of insinuating. So I think that like, um, we're all getting a little bit of a lesson in like how journalism works thanks to that whole to debacle.

But yeah, like it's, um. Yeah, those are the, those are the things. It's like showing the work, talking to lots of [00:42:00] people, giving readers or listeners or wa or viewers access to the same, the information too. So if people wanna do their own research, they can, nobody's hiding anything publicly Correcting things when corrections are needed and being very, like, you know, upfront about it.

Um, then, 

Dr. Anikó: and how do people 

Amy Westervelt: Yeah. 

Dr. Anikó: Give their viewers or readers access to the research? Do they just name the studies that they looked at or just, 

Amy Westervelt: they'll name it, they'll link it. Sometimes people will, will actually do like end notes where they'll link to all of the different mm-hmm. Um, 

Dr. Anikó: yeah, like references 

Amy Westervelt: versus mm-hmm.

Dr. Anikó: Like, 

Amy Westervelt: yeah. References, which is nice. And I realize like, not everybody has, you know. Loads and loads of time to read like super thoroughly reported pieces and things like that. So there again, like if there's this particular social media person that you like and that you're like, oh, I feel like this person keeps me up to date on the news or whatever, and it only, it's [00:43:00] only like five minutes a day or something.

Again, like they should be citing their sources, even if it's not in the video. Ideally, like they're linking to all of their sources below so that you can, you know, a, you know, like, okay, like they're pulling from the Associated Press and Reuters and, you know, whatever. I actually almost feel now like a, I know a lot more independent journalists that are more rigorous about their reporting and fact checking, but you usually, like, you can see that pretty quickly.

Like, these are not people that are, um, that are gonna not like, cite their sources and link to everything or whatever, even if they're doing like short and snappy videos, which you can do as someone who has heavily researched something. I have a, a friend who does a show called Climate Town on YouTube.

It's a YouTube channel. Him and his, um, producing partner come from like an improv comedy background, but they also both have masters in climate policies.andthey [00:44:00] cite the research, you know, that they've looked into it, you know, you can tell that like they've done their homework and, um, 

Dr. Anikó: when just figuring out, sorry, go on.

Amy Westervelt: No, no, no. You go. 

Dr. Anikó: I was just gonna say that figuring out if your like favorite sources of news, whether they are on YouTube or on social media, whatever, that they are, are reputable. Yes. And then you can, you know, wholeheartedly just sort of dig into that. But exactly. The media we consume is so, I mean, it is so powerful.

Yeah. And we consume so much of it at this point. It's 

Amy Westervelt: really, I do it too sometimes, 

Or someone will just say something. Anytime I think we see something that feels true, it's so easy to believe it. It's like, oh yeah, that's probably true. And then, yeah, 

Dr. Anikó: it's just confirmation bias. I mean, and in medicine obviously that happens all the time that people will just.

Share sort of random information that kind of came out of nowhere and it spreads like wildfire. 

Amy Westervelt: Wildfire. Yeah. 

Dr. Anikó: And if you just put that into like a quick Google search [00:45:00] and try to figure out where it came from. Yeah. You would very quickly find out if it came from a study or if it came from like a random person saying it on their social media page.

Which again, doesn't mean it's not true if that random person on their social media page is getting it from a study or is like sharing their results before the study is officially published or something like that. Right. Which really supposed to do, but um, you know, the ability to discern then enables your mind that is just kind of like a sponge.

And we all consume so much media at this point. Yeah. To be consuming media that's actually informing and educating us instead of like distorting and brainwashing us, you know? Yeah. 

Amy Westervelt: And just making us, I don't know. I do. Oh, I feel like the, okay. The other thing I was gonna say was that, um, I do feel like there's a certain way that people craft sentences that are geared towards outrage, and that to me is always like a big indicator of like, oh, they're just trying to like, get clicks andlike, [00:46:00] you know. The secret behind da, da da, and Like we wanna hype up whatever the big reveal is of too.

But I, I, there are definitely like outlets where you're, you could see like every single story is some version of that, and you're like, okay, this, this seems bad. Um, this doesn't seem like someone that is, that is like actually trying to find the truth and share it. It seems like someone who is like pushing an agenda.

Dr. Anikó: and being able to figure that out just seems like such a better use of our like, life energy. Like the time that we're looking. Yeah. Like spend it on actual information, if that's what you're trying to get. If it's entertainment, be entertained. 

Amy Westervelt: Right. 

 Yeah, exactly. It's like, okay, that's not, no. Um, or if it's like, yeah, like they worked for this think tank and then they did this, or whatever. It's like, okay, well this is someone who, you know, people have decided is like good at getting out a particular political message that's not a [00:47:00] journalist.

Um, 

Dr. Anikó: yeah. So can you just very clearly like, spell it out, what is a journalist and then Oh yeah. And then what, yes. What is the job of people that are always writing op-eds and Yeah. Opinion pieces. 

Amy Westervelt: Yeah. So a journalist or a reporter has to like the, they're reporting on. Information that is outside of like their opinion.

So they have to, by nature of that, talk to other people, read research and other sources, go look for documentation of whatever it is they're trying to understand. So that could be like internal documents from a company or, um. You know, res scientific research or things like that. Um, and then like, kind of condense that all into a story.

So it should have like links to research quotes from [00:48:00] various people that the, that the journalist has talked to. Things like that, where it's like their job is to kind of translate information for the general public. Make sure that like, the most, most basic, um, definition I've heard comes from like the ear, kind of the early days of newspapers, where the idea is like a journalist job is to give the people the information they need to self govern.

So that's like information about, you know, health issues, environmental issues, that all the things we need to, like, make decisions about our lives, whether it's voting, whether it's the stuff we buy, what we're eating, where we live, all of that stuff. That is the job of journalists, opinion writers. Are, um, you know, like useful to that as well.

Like they, they like provide interesting thoughts and analysis into, you know, the, the soup that we're all swimming in and like might influence how [00:49:00] people make decisions as well, but they're coming in with a particular perspective. They're like, here's what I think about this information that is out here.

They're not the ones that are like giving you information, they're giving you their analysis of that information. So it's like, you know, and it, it's coming from a particular perspective. It's either a particular political perspective or maybe it's like an identity based perspective, but it's, it has a perspective.

In fact, that is the number one thing you will hear from any editor you pitch an op-ed to is like, but what's like your perspective on this thing? What argument are you making? They're almost always making an argument. That's a key New York Times op-ed thing. Every single New York Times op-ed editor is like, yeah, but what argument are you making?

So they have, you have to be arguing for something, which means that it's like persuasive writing. It's coming from a perspective. They're trying to get you to see and or agree with your, their perspective, um, [00:50:00] which is very different than they're trying to give you information to send you off to think about it yourself.

Dr. Anikó: Very different. Yeah. And which is why it's very. I'm just gonna use my op-ed moment. It's very dangerous in my opinion, when we start conflating the two that yes, this person's opinion that this is bad or good or whatever Yeah. Is a fact versus Yes, this is their opinion. And also often, because like you're saying in those op-ed pieces, they're trying to make an argument.

They're not giving you all sides of the story necessarily. That's right. They're just giving you their side. Whereas a journalist will give you all the information that you need to make an educated decision. That's why you were saying you talk to people who don't agree, who don't think it's a good idea, but comparable people, right.

Maybe scientists who think this is great, and other scientists who think this is not, and giving their, you know, input and allowing you with all your links and resources to have the reader then [00:51:00] make a conclusion. But if a conclusion is being made for you Yeah. That's not journalism. 

Amy Westervelt: That's right. Yeah. And if like you feel like.

The thing you're reading is trying to convince you of something or another, probably not journalism, 

Dr. Anikó: you know? Yeah, yeah. 

Amy Westervelt: If it's, if you feel like, like you're reading an argument, that's an op-ed. Yeah. Um, yeah. And there are so many very, very smart, thoughtful op-eds out there. There are also reporters who occasionally will write an op-ed.

I've done them myself. I know less people that have, um, yeah. And, and vice versa, there are op-ed writers who will then like, go and do a reported piece too. These are not, they're not like mutually exclusive skillsets, but, um, but yeah, if you're consuming that content and it's, and it's so much harder with video on social 'cause it's like people will be like, let me [00:52:00] tell you how it works, you know?

And, um, it's very convincing, you know, like, um. Yeah. So, yeah. But yeah. 

Dr. Anikó: Yeah. There's 

Amy Westervelt: nothing wrong. Citing their sources is big. It's big. Well, and nothing, it's like, yeah, 

Dr. Anikó: yeah. Sorry. I mean, 

Amy Westervelt: it's 

Dr. Anikó: the key. No, no, no. I was gonna say that there's nothing wrong with op-eds. The only problem is when it gets conflated with factual information versus Yeah.

An opinion. And not that people's opinions aren't based on facts, but sometimes they're not. Yeah. Sometimes they're not. Sometimes they're not. 

Amy Westervelt: Yeah. Or sometimes like someone's interpretation of the facts is just way off base, you know? Also, I think what's happened, a big thing that's happened in the last five years, I would say, yeah, maybe even 10, because of like the rise of social media and the digitization of media.

Just like the, all of the changes that like the business model for journalism has gone through over the last 10 to 20 years. [00:53:00] It's a lot cheaper to. Pay someone for an op-ed than it is to fund reporting. Okay. So you are seeing more and more and more and more opinions and essays and these are all very cheap forms of content.

It doesn't require, you don't have to pay someone for like reporting time. You're seeing a huge decline in the last five years, in particular in investigative reporting. 'cause it's expensive. It takes time. You have to do like, yeah. Fact checking and legal review and you're not, sometimes I'll have, I have this one lady on LinkedIn who was, I don't know, like my favorite critic for a while, who was constantly like, why don't you ever write positive climate stories?

And I was like, well, I'm an investigative reporter. So like by its nature, the things I'm looking at are not the positive things. You know? Like I, there would be nothing for me to investigate in that. You know, like there are other people who write only about, you [00:54:00] know. Solutions that are working and um, places that are good examples for us to look at.

And what, and like, I love that stuff too. Like I read that stuff all the time and it's helpful and it's great. That's just not what I do. Like, you know, these are, there are different types of, of content out there, you know, and not every climate reporter is just, is like focused on the bad things or the good things or whatever.

Like we're all doing different stuff. But yeah, I'm like an investigative journalist is, you know, usually looking at. Wrongdoing. That's like what we do. 

Dr. Anikó: Yeah. Because you wouldn't necessarily have to investigate to find the things that people are really excited about and wanna share with you. You have to investigate with people actively hiding information from you, for example.

Yeah. You know, 

Amy Westervelt: or if I'm like, you know, this, this one lady in particular, like, she wanted me to cover her company, and I'm like, trust me, you don't Because if, like,

if I. [00:55:00] If I did do a story on you, it would be because I found out that like you were lying or that like, your solution doesn't really work or, you know what I mean? It's like, 

Dr. Anikó: yeah, 

Amy Westervelt: you don't want that smoke. Leave me alone.

Dr. Anikó: Yeah. That's funny that she kept contacting you to give you 

Amy Westervelt: Yeah. 

Dr. Anikó: Her 

Amy Westervelt: to be like, I don't understand why you won't write about my like air conditioning solution. And I was like, well, does it not work? 'cause then I would write about it.

Dr. Anikó: Sold. Sold. Um, 

Amy Westervelt: yeah. 

Dr. Anikó: What did I wanna say? Oh, that, I was just gonna say that there, there's parallels too with medical research as well and medical citation. Yeah. And all of that where, you know, people like, you know, something will go viral on social media and it's just somebody's like WordPress website.

It's not Yes. It's like essentially like an op-ed piece from a person who like. Boston actually isn't a medical doctor. Like they might be some other kind of [00:56:00] doctor, but like 

Amy Westervelt: Yeah. 

Dr. Anikó: You know, and the important 

Amy Westervelt: of, I see that a lot, even just as like a lay person. I'm like, wait, that's a, that person's PhD is in public policy that's not a doctor.

Dr. Anikó: Yeah. Which is informative, but it's not the same as a medical doctor. So just that idea of knowing what you're reading, knowing how reputable different journals are too, you know? 

Amy Westervelt: Yes. Because there are some really funky journals out there too, where like, wait a minute. 

Dr. Anikó: And there's some very well respected ones.

And also that, you know, there are opinion and editorial articles even in medical journals. Yeah. But those are typically very clearly labeled. Mm-hmm. But if you read, if the average person reads a medical journal article. I mean, I couldn't read them before I went to medical school. I tried. Yeah, they're very boring if you don't.

Yes, and all the jargon, it's hard to understand and they're also just telling you like there is a part of where they have a discussion, where they talk about what they think is the usefulness [00:57:00] maybe, or even the things that were challenging or the things that maybe mean that their results maybe aren't as accurate, whatever, like plans for the future as well.

But really what they're doing is they're reporting to you what they're looking at, why they're looking at it, and then just reporting back all of the details of the study and the results in a very disconnected, they're not like, I love, they're not 

Amy Westervelt: like, and this is what it means. It's very like, blah. Yeah.

Dr. Anikó: Just the facts, man. And again, yeah, in the discussion, sometimes they'll say, these are possible future implications or whatever, but yeah. The point is to present you with black and white information and you draw the conclusions. Yeah. You know, I've definitely seen studies where they have titles that are very misleading.

Um, yeah. And, and, but then when you read the study, you're like, oh, that's not quite what I'm getting, 

Amy Westervelt: really What it, 

Dr. Anikó: you know? Yeah. Like, it's technically true. Like the example that I'm thinking about is that there was a study years and years ago that compared. I don't wanna, I don't wanna say it [00:58:00] wrong, but I might like St.

John's wart compared to another antidepressant, like a pharmaceutical antidepressant. And it said, mm-hmm. St. John's wart not effective for moderate to severe depression. But then when you look at the study itself, it showed that neither the typical antidepressant nor the St. John's wort was effective for s moderate to severe depression, but they were both equally effective for mild to moderate depression's.

Fascinating. That's interesting. Choice of 

Amy Westervelt: title. Wow. That's a frame. Yeah. 

Dr. Anikó: Yeah. You know, so even, and that's technically true, so you can't say you're lying, but it is a very particular interpretation and highlighting of the information. 

Yeah. 

Dr. Anikó: And that was, that was a, that was a legit scientific article. Um, but, and the conclusions were correct, just the title was very 

Amy Westervelt: misleading.

Dr. Anikó: Misleading, yeah. 

Amy Westervelt: That's a tough one too, because I do, I always, I also am always like. Read past the [00:59:00] headline before you decide what to think. I, it's, it is so maddening to me, like how many people, the, I guess this isn't like a te a this isn't like the worst way for this to go, but I have like, so many people on social media will do this thing where they're, they'll read the first line of my story and then they'll do some kind of response that's basically like, um, it's basically like, I know something about this.

I know something. You know, and, and then like they'll, they'll share something that is in the story itself as well. Or they'll be like, what about blah, blah, blah? And I'm like, yeah, I covered that in the story that you're responding to. Like read it, you know? It's so frustrating. Ah, I don't know why people feel, but I also am like, okay, well if you're taking the time to reply online, and that means you're also probably like maybe, um.

Like could potentially bring it up in conversation [01:00:00] with someone or whatever. You know what I mean? So I'm just like, oh, like I hope that people are reading more than just the headlines. If they're gonna, if they're gonna take it on board enough to like form an opinion or you know, say something about it or whatever.

It's like, just read it. Just read the whole thing. Or if you don't have time or you don't wanna bother, then just like, don't give it too much, like, you know, importance in your mind. 

Dr. Anikó: Or just know that you only read the headline so you actually don't know what the article's about. You know, I think we can all relate to just not having the bandwidth to see an article that looks interesting and be like, I'm gonna read the whole thing in its entirety right now.

You know? It's sort of like, yes, exactly. But know that you didn't read the article and treat it as such. Yeah. You know? Yeah. If you read the article, it's 

Amy Westervelt: so weird. Do we think it's weird? Like, I feel like at this time there's this. At the same time that like actual expertise is being like attacked and eroded and whatever, there's also this [01:01:00] weird drive for everyone to assert their own expertise on everything all the time.

Dr. Anikó: Think it's a, I think it's a fear response to be honest. I think that like we can all feel that our trust is being. Decimated intentionally. Yeah. Not that we can't trust those people, but that we're being told over and over again not to Yeah. And there this, there's this desire to be like, well, I'm, I'm the expert.

Then I, I do all my research and it's like, 

Amy Westervelt: I'm smart. I know how to research. Yeah. 

Dr. Anikó: Yeah. Well, but also our research depends upon other experts. Like I have a good friend. Yes. And we were in one of our, like many election seasons here, and we were talking about low information voters and mm-hmm. She was like, I mean, ultimately we're all kind of low information voters and we rely on one another like that friend network, bring it full circle.

Amy, yeah. A friend circle. Um, we rely on other people to inform us other people that we trust. Yes. So, when that [01:02:00] falls away, then we have to be like, oh, well it's us. But even in your research, you have to have other people that you trust unless you're all of a sudden gonna start like becoming a climate scientist and go do climate research on your own.

Amy Westervelt: Right, right. 

Dr. Anikó: There have to be trustworthy sources and all the tools that you've shared today. Help us find who those trustworthy sources are. 'cause it's not everybody. Yes. You know? 

Amy Westervelt: No, I know. I was talking, I had an intern from Berkeley, like smart, educated, like she's doing a master's in like economics or something.

Like she's really smart, very switched on. She was like, I get all my, all of my news from like this one, Guy like who has a newsletter and does a bunch of like Instagram videos, right? And I was like, oh, well what's like, where's he getting his news from? She's like, oh, he's great. Like he gets stuff out even before like the New York Times or anyone else.

Like, he's like, whatever. And I went and looked at it and I read his thing and I was like, oh, well yeah, [01:03:00] because he's a plant from like one of the political parties and he's being like given a bunch of stuff to share with his public. So yeah, he's getting stuff out before the New York Times. 'cause he is not a fucking journalist.

Like he's not fact checking anything and like he has no reason to question anything he's being told because he is literally just a mouthpiece for like a political organization, which like I spotted in about two minutes, I'm just like, just, I looked him up on LinkedIn and it was like, oh. All of his jobs are as like, you know, a political operative.

So like abort, abort, 

Dr. Anikó: say, yeah, but what did it say? Just so people who aren't you can go 

Amy Westervelt: do 

Dr. Anikó: work well. Like, okay, so he had, what did his job look like? Like what does his list of jobs? 

Amy Westervelt: Yeah. So he, like, he had worked for specific political candidates. He had worked [01:04:00] for, um, you know, it was like the, the, uh, democratic party of, you know, California or whatever he, you know, whatever.

So, you know, that was one where like this guy happened to be a, a Democratic party, um, plant. And like, but I was like, okay, like you may, you might agree with many of the policies of that political party as well. That's fine. But like, that's not who you should be getting your news from. 

Dr. Anikó: Yeah. 

Amy Westervelt: You know, like, 

Dr. Anikó: yeah, 

Amy Westervelt: that is, and again, I, I actually like, I, um, I subscribe to a, a wide range of like right wing newsletters, left wing newsletter.

Like I do feel like actually people, as much as they can, getting like a lot of variety in their media diet is very helpful as well. Because like I do, I do see some of the same conspiracy theories showing up in like, different forms across those. And then I'm like, okay, those are like the [01:05:00] two fringes. I can dis disregard, you know?

Or I'm like, oh, maybe there's some smoke to this fire. Like, who knows? Or fire to the smoke. I don't know, whatever. Anyway, I'm just kind of like the more like varied. You're. Media consumption is, and like as much as po like of course we all enjoy things that confirm what we already believe, you know, but, but as much as possible, to the extent that anyone has like the timer energy for this, it is good to challenge those things, you know, and to like make yourself think like, oh, is this real?

I also look for a lot of sources outside the US for US news as well. 'cause I think it's, it's interesting to see how things get covered outside the US too, but also a lot of times, like stuff is getting covered in. You know, international media that's not being covered in the us Um, yeah, and to me, like that's the benefit of social media too is, is like, it's not, [01:06:00] I'm less, I'm less inclined to be into like the news influencer people.

'cause I'm kind of like, well that person is just getting the headlines from some place that actually like paid reporters and then like, regurgitating them. I would rather give my like attention and money and whatever to the actual reporters that are doing, you know, the work. Yeah. Or, um, you know, I don't know.

But, um, when like certain things will happen and there's a bunch of protests happening and it's not getting covered anywhere. The only place I see it is on social media. So for like on the ground news that's like happening, especially around protest anymore, I think that like, um. It's actually quite helpful for that.

Sometimes even stuff coming outta Washington. 'cause they're, the administration right now is very into social media releases, which it's a whole other thing. But, um, but anyway, like sometimes I'm like, [01:07:00] oh, like I actually, the only place I can find the original thing that was said is like on social media.

So like it does have usefulness for things like that. But, um, but yeah. 

Dr. Anikó: Yeah. Anyway, and that also feels like it speaks to like, having friends that you can trust. 'cause like if my friend posts a video that they took. Yeah. Or their friend took, or whatever it is that has a whole different level of trust and relevance.

Yes. Um, to, to my understanding of 

Amy Westervelt: what's going on. Yes. Because things get Doctor too. It's really like, ugh. It's really, did you actually, there was a, another, another movie, um, a movie ref, uh, reference. This 

Dr. Anikó: is actually a movie review show. Yeah. 

Amy Westervelt: There was a, there was a movie I watched recently, I think it's called like Mountain Head or something like that.

Steve Carrell is in it, and it's the, the whole premise is that these like four startup [01:08:00] founders. Like, um, go on this mountain vacation together every year. And, um, one of them has like invented a, an AI that is so realistic that it allows people to do deep fakes really easily. And so they're like, um, they're all there together as this like hits the world.

And all of these things start to happen that are like really catastrophic because people are believing the things that they're seeing on all of these, like media channels and everything else. It's so good and like kind of scary, but, um, but really good. It just came, I feel like it didn't get that much, um, attention, but I thought it was really good.

Dr. Anikó: I mean, it's about to blow up. We just featured it Nourished. I know. 

 when you were talking about that you subscribed to all these different news outlets, international, right wing, left wing. I'm assuming, or maybe not. Are you getting your news from [01:09:00] reputable news outlets? Yes. Or are you like, no, because like there's also, there's probably also a benefit to kind of keeping your finger on the pulse of the Oh, 

Amy Westervelt: totally.

Dr. Anikó: Of the constant opinion kind of propaganda stuff that's coming out in the world as well. You know? 

Amy Westervelt: Yes. I totally, I mean, I do, I don't, I don't go to those outlets for news necessarily. Right. So much as I do. Yeah. Just to kind of keep tabs on like, okay, what is, like, what's the latest conspiracy theory?

also, I think it's helpful as someone who, um, is trying to like, get information out to people to understand that like, okay, the super, super right wing audiences are being fed. Like this story and the super, super left are being, you know, like to, it's under, it's like helpful to understand.

How things are being framed in different echo chambers, so that I kind of have a sense of like how to best [01:10:00] communicate things in a way that won't immediately make certain people go like, oh, she's, you know, a radical leftist or whatever. Mm-hmm. You know? Mm-hmm. I try not to think too much about that stuff 'cause I'm just like, whatever, like the information I have is the information I have, so I change Yeah.

Just the facts. I'm not framing it in, you know, and like, and I also am like, I don't know, I'm pretty like out on, I don't know, out in the open about everything, so. 

Dr. Anikó: Mm-hmm. 

Amy Westervelt: You know? 

Dr. Anikó: Yeah. Like, 

Amy Westervelt: I'm certainly not like pretending that I don't think climate change is real. 

Dr. Anikó: Right. 

Amy Westervelt: Or like the jury is still out or whatever.

Right. You know? Right. So. Yeah. 

Dr. Anikó: Well, and I also, going back to something you said earlier about approaching all the conversations as like, what am I missing? I think that's such a valuable practice, especially now because I feel like so many people are coming in and being like, I actually know [01:11:00] exactly what's going on.

And then not only 

Amy Westervelt: people are so convinced, 

Dr. Anikó: not only do you probably not have all the information 'cause you're not an investigative journalist. Yes. And you might not even be reading actual news. You might be consuming like just a hundred percent opinion propaganda pieces. Which is 

Amy Westervelt: Yeah. 

Dr. Anikó: Very common at this point that that's where we're getting our like quote unquote news.

Yes. But also even in just general life, like you can't approach other humans without respecting their identity and sphere and the soup that they are in. 

Amy Westervelt: Yes. Totally 

Dr. Anikó: and expect that you're going to be able to build connection. And I realize that a lot of people aren't trying to build connection, but I personally am so right.

I find it so wise and helpful to be like, I respect you as a human. And I actually did have this interaction in my personal life. And I won't get into like what, what the trigger event was, but it was a big trigger event. And I had somebody who I knew [01:12:00] was a good person who had a very particular and very opposite reaction to what I had to this triggering event.

And I reached out and I was like, you're a good dude. Help me understand why you are experiencing this so differently from how I am. You know? 

Amy Westervelt: Yeah. Yeah. 

Dr. Anikó: And we did have a talk about it, and it doesn't mean that I agree with him, but it is an acknowledgement that we are in like totally different worlds and echo chambers in many ways.

And that doesn't mean that we don't have anything to learn from one another because what's echoing around his chamber. I'm not saying it's like a hundred percent true, but it's also not a hundred percent false, you know? And if we can approach one another with an expectation that we are going to not just have mutual respect, but also curiosity.

Amy Westervelt: Yes. And that we're actually like open to new information too. Like, actually, I don't know if you remember the, the beard, since we have known each other for so long, I had a roommate for a long time who was like very right [01:13:00] wing, conservative, I remember 

Dr. Anikó: in the barracks, right?

Amy Westervelt: Mm-hmm. 

Dr. Anikó: Yeah. 

Amy Westervelt: Yes. We had completely opposite opinions on almost everything. But I was like, this made me curious. Like, I was like, I approached him like, oh, where did you get that? Like, what did, where did that info, where did that idea come from? Like, where did that information come from? This and that. And he and I both actually.

Really like, would take in information from each other. She just was like, she was like, I cannot with this guy. Like, no, I'm not at all, you know? Um, which is fine. Like that's, I understand like not everyone feels like they want to spend the time and effort and energy required to like find that, you know, middle ground.

But I found it, it was super helpful to me, like in life in general and also in my job too, to be like, oh, interest, like, you know, to understand where some of his beliefs came from, where he would go to look for data and information too. And because I was like that, [01:14:00] he was open to me being like, I don't know if that's like the best place to look for information.

Like you might wanna at least like add these two other places so that you're getting like a well-rounded. You know, source. Yeah. And he was like, okay, like I'll do that. Like he was, you know, he was like, yeah, okay. Like I'm open to that. You know? He was very appreciative that I would like sit down and have these conversations with him and not just get mad at him and leave them.

Dr. Anikó: Well, and also your conversations were in good faith. Like you were genuinely curious. Yeah. You weren't like pretending to be curious and then like, it's like, gotcha. You're an idiot. 

Amy Westervelt: Gotcha. You're so 

Dr. Anikó: dumb. Yeah, exactly. I was like, 

Amy Westervelt: oh, inter, because he was very educated, you know, he had a good job. I think he, he was like at 1.1 of, I think the main structural engineer for the Bay Bridge.

Like 

Dr. Anikó: really? 

Amy Westervelt: Yeah. Which is scary when you think about it. No, only because. [01:15:00] No, it's only because he was super accident prone. 

Dr. Anikó: Oh.

Amy Westervelt: Um, 

Dr. Anikó: to be strong. Good Bridge. Birthday was nine 11.

I have a good friend whose birthday is nine 11 and it's, it's, ugh. It's a hard birthday. Bummer to have. I know. 

Amy Westervelt: Yeah. 

Dr. Anikó: Um, it's 

Amy Westervelt: a bummer. Anyway, but yeah. Um, yeah. Do I do feel like, and I am curious and I am always, I'm pretty, I mean, I don't wanna like. You know, um, pretend like I'm some sort of fricking magical being who has no biases or, you know, whatever.

Of course we all do and, and like, but I am pretty open to being wrong about things. You know, I'm like, I wish I was wrong about climate change. That'd be great. 

Yeah. 

Dr. Anikó: I would 

Amy Westervelt: love to be wrong about that. 

Dr. Anikó: Oh, I really relate to that feeling of being like, I [01:16:00] wish I was wrong, but all of the science is yes.

Showing that I'm not wrong. You know, all of the well studied, replicated, and now, you know, as you said, what was predicted is coming true. So even, yes, any element of being like, maybe not, it's like, well, no, it's actually actually coming true. It's actually happening. 

Amy Westervelt: So yeah. I'm like, I mean, yeah, for, for scientists it doesn't get better than like Yeah.

The modeling that we did 20 years ago has proven a hundred percent accurate. Like 

Dr. Anikó: Yeah. 

Amy Westervelt: Yeah. That's like as. Good proof as you can get right. 

Dr. Anikó: In 

Amy Westervelt: science, 

Dr. Anikó: you 

Amy Westervelt: know? But 

Dr. Anikó: yes, and not that anybody wants that to continue, but, but the good part about being right about that is that means that we're also right about how to combat it, you know?

Amy Westervelt: Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, you said before that like it's, you know, um, it's like infuriating to know that all [01:17:00] of this has been done to try to like misinform people, but also empowering in a way. And I totally agree, because I feel like, like a, I find anger to be very activating. Like, it's, it's an activating emotion.

It makes me wanna like, do something, but also I, I'm like, oh, well, like specific people spent money and effort to like, make this problem worse or to like, put us all on this pathway. So that means that like a, it's not inevitable. Because people will be like, oh, well that's human nature. I'm like, no specific people like pointed us in this direction.

So that means that like people can be pointed in other directions and it means that like actually we have a lot more agency than we think, and that there are specific reasons for why we're in these situations. And it's not just this like inevitable decline that, you know, is [01:18:00] very disempowering and depressing.

Like I think, yeah, for me I'm like, I would rather know about like how it happened so that I know that it can actually be. Reversed than to just be like, oh, well there's nothing we can do. 

Dr. Anikó: Well, and that helplessness only serves the people who are benefiting from the situation as is. Yeah. And you know, any, any fabricated story about helplessness, right.

Like, my vote doesn't matter. Um, but if we do against climate change, doesn't matter, like how we take care of ourselves, whatever, whatever it is 

Amy Westervelt: Yeah. 

Dr. Anikó: People benefit from that helplessness. 

Amy Westervelt: Yes. 

Dr. Anikó: And, and they put a lot of energy into trying to convince us that there's nothing that we can do about it so that they don't have to do anything differently.

If that's any indication of how much power we have, is that Yes. So much money is allocated to trying to convince us that we don't have any power. 

Amy Westervelt: Yes, [01:19:00] yes. That's a great point. Yeah, totally. Like they don't spend money on stuff that they like, that they don't think works and that they don't think is a threat to them.

Dr. Anikó: Mm-hmm. 

Amy Westervelt: So. Yes. 

Dr. Anikó: When's your book coming out? Ames? 

Amy Westervelt: September. It's September of this year. So yeah, I think September 20th ish, around then. Yeah. 

Dr. Anikó: That's exciting. Yeah. And people can just get it anywhere. Books are sold, I'm assuming 

Amy Westervelt: anywhere books are sold. Yeah, it's, uh, Bloomsbury is the publisher and I think it'll be in all the places.

So, 

Dr. Anikó: yeah. And if you're wanting to hear more from Amy Westervelt and her amazing, truly, truly amazing investigative journalism, how can people find you and find drilled and find all the work that you do? Yeah. 

Amy Westervelt: Um, drilled Media is the website and kind of everything's there, like the articles. Anything that we co-publish with other people, we [01:20:00] like put there too.

And then podcast stuff too. So it's all, it's all there. 

Dr. Anikó: Amy, thank you so much for being here with me and with all of our listeners and for giving us just so much expertise and knowledge and tools that we can use to inform ourselves and truly make a difference in the future of our like entire planet. 

Amy Westervelt: Of course. Thank you. Thanks for having me.

It was fun to see you. 

Dr. Anikó: It was fun to see you too. And I'll see y'all next time. [01:21:00]