The world is increasingly plagued by extreme weather events like heatwaves and floods. But how can we be sure that the information we receive about these events is truly accurate? In an era where misinformation and fake news are widespread on social media, the question arises: Can an ordinary citizen distinguish reliable facts from false information – and if so, how?
This question is not just of academic interest but of great societal importance. False information about climate change can distort public discourse and endanger political decisions.
Can I Verify a Political “Fact” Claim?
To answer this question, we subjected ourselves to a fact-check – with a concrete political claim. The AfD, a right-wing party in Germany that often downplays climate change, writes in its election program: “Despite the alarmism spread by the media and politics, there are neither more frequent extreme weather events nor an accelerating rise in sea levels in reality.”
In contrast, a statement from the Green Party reads: “The effects of climate change have become increasingly severe in recent years, both in Europe and worldwide. Extreme weather events like heatwaves and floods have cost lives, destroyed homes and harvests, and shattered wealth and jobs.”
It quickly becomes apparent that these statements offer different perspectives on the same topic. And this is where the challenge begins: How do you verify such political statements?
The first step: research
The sources we used for verification varied depending on the political source. On one side, there are scientific data and reports from organizations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or the World Climate Council. On the other side, there are political statements that are often ideologically biased.
In his response to us, the member of the EU Parliament Sebastian Everding emphasized the importance of using reliable sources. He listed clear criteria for selecting reputable data sources:
- Official institutions and scientific studies (preferably peer-reviewed)
- Public broadcasters or reputable media
- Recognized expert opinions
- Fact-checks and independent confirmation from multiple sources
Examples of sources that meet these criteria include the Federal Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt) or scientific studies on IOPscience. Everding also warned against sources with a political agenda or economic interests, such as those found with the AfD.
The desperate attempt: 7 MPs and no replies
To gain a broader perspective on the issue, we reached out to seven members of the European Parliament from different parties. We wanted to know how they dealt with conflicting statements about climate research and which sources they considered trustworthy. However, after three weeks, we received only one response – from Sebastian Everding, a member of the Animal Welfare Party.
It is a disgrace that only one MP responded. In a time when climate issues are among the most pressing topics on the political agenda, it is shocking how little willingness there is to engage with such fundamental questions. Politicians should take responsibility and not abandon their constituents by ignoring the facts. The fact that seven MPs couldn’t even bother to respond to a simple request speaks volumes about the handling of scientific knowledge and public communication.
The response from the Expert Council on Climate Issues
In addition to the political level, we sought advice from the Expert Council on Climate Issues (ERK), an independent body of five experts from various disciplines. The ERK is appointed by the German government and has a clear mandate, which is anchored in the Federal Climate Protection Act. The mandate focuses on monitoring national climate goals and the scientific evaluation of climate issues.
The response from Cynthia Schmitt, a representative of the ERK, was very helpful for our research, as she pointed us to important and trustworthy sources. The ERK recommended the 2023 IPCC Assessment Report, which thoroughly outlines the current scientific understanding of climate change and human influence. Other useful sources include the Helmholtz KLIMA digital platform, which provides an overview of key facts about climate research, and the Federal Environment Agency, which regularly publishes answers to frequently asked questions about climate change.
These suggestions helped us find well-founded, scientifically verified information that is not influenced by political interests.
First obstacles: unclear sources and contradictory information
Despite the clear criteria, we encountered several obstacles. What counts as a reputable source is not always clear. The effort to compare multiple sources should not be underestimated. Sometimes, different institutions offer conflicting interpretations of the same data set. One example is the reporting of extreme weather events: some studies show an increased frequency of natural disasters, while others report only a moderate rise. Such differences complicate the research.
Additionally, access to reliable data and expert opinions is often not easy. Even though scientific studies are freely available, they often contain very technical details that are difficult for laypeople to understand.
The reality: how hard is fact-checking really?
Fact-checking is not only time-consuming but also fraught with difficulties. A quick Google search is often not enough to thoroughly verify the facts. The truth is: A thorough research process, which involves comparing multiple sources and expert opinions, is by no means a “5-minute job.” Even with the best sources, it takes time and effort to understand the connections and extract reliable information.
Conclusion: what did we learn from this self-test?
In the end, we realized: Even with significant effort and careful source verification, it is difficult for an individual citizen to clearly assess political “facts.” The confusion is further exacerbated by contradictory information and ideologically biased sources. Even when using the best sources, it remains a challenge to extract and properly interpret the relevant data.
RESEARCH | ARTICLE © Lea Prawit and Nane Fechtner | Jade University of Applied Sciences Wilhelmshaven, Germany
Leave your comments, thoughts and suggestions in the box below. Take note: your response is moderated.
