When searching for climate change topics on Spotify and Apple Podcasts and the podcast search engine Listen Notes, I observed that two types of channels where dominant in the results. The first type are channels which are primarily focused on climate change issues and solutions. These are rooted in research and use either a humorous or factual tone to discuss and educate about these topics. They seem to be hosted by academics or journalists, and in one case, by comedians with degrees in climate science (the Climate deniers’ playbook). I’ll call these the factual channels.

The second type are podcasts channels from think tanks or media outlets largely affiliated with far-right movements. These channels cover a variety of contemporary subjects and occasionally topics related to climate change. Here, the information shared is primarily false and goes against the consensus on climate change as found in research. I’ll call these the climate obstruction channels. These types of channels describe themselves as being for “smart people,” while spreading conspiracy theories and misinformation. Additionally, some channels falsely claim that they are free from the influence of any religion or organisation. One example here is The Epoch times, which is behind the podcast channel Facts Matter. The Epoch times is a far-right news channel tied to the Chinese religious movement Falun Gong, has supported politicians like Marine le Pen and promoted a variety of conspiracy theories.

Research shows these is a well-established strategy from far-right counter media outlets, including podcast channels. They portray themselves as truthful and unbiased and say that they create a platform for raising views not heard elsewhere. They also try to replace and undermine traditional media by claiming it is biased and deceitful. Similar channels which often appear in my searches are America Out loud podcast network and Heartland daily podcast by the Heartland institute, both which deny climate change research.

The podcast host of Facts Matter is also the director of a climate denier film called No farmers no food: will you eat the bugs? The title plays at the slogan no farmers, no food, no future which has been used in farmer-led protests across Europe. As farmers are struggling to make ends meet in the aftermath of the pandemic and with rising energy costs, they have reacted to new EU nature restoration legislations which impact how farmers manage their farmland. In this complex situation, farmers have been targeted by far-right groups and conspiracy theories claiming that the World Economic forum and governments want farms to go out of business. This apparently in the name of climate change, the great reset and reaching net zero and that they want people to eat bugs instead. As the film had recently been released when I did my study in 2024, this was one topic which occurred frequently in the climate obstruction podcasts. I also searched on listen notes for two other common climate denier topics, one was the film Climate the movie: the cold truth which rejects the scientific consensus that climate change is real and created by human activity. The other topic was “wind turbine syndrome,” which falsely suggests that wind power infrasound has a negative effect on the heart muscle. These topics did not appear in many recent podcast episodes, showing that there are clear trends in what gets attention. A couple of years ago wind power was the subject of a lot of misinformation which led to strong opposition against this energy source. Misinformation and conspiracy theories clearly have consequences, in this case for the environment and a sustainable transition.

How are listeners to differentiate between these two types of channels? One distinction I noticed is in how they name and describe their episodes. The factual channels usually have straightforward titles like “how do wind turbines work?” or more humorous ones like “tilting at wind turbines,” the latter playing on the themes of the book Don Quixote by Cervantes. The climate obstruction type of channels often use language which is aimed at creating strong emotions. In their episode titles and descriptions, I came across sentences like “Solid science supports the reality of ‘Wind Turbine Syndrome’,” “Uncovering media Bias and Lies,” and “The government is lying to you.” However, there are also channels spreading misinformation which use straightforward and serious episode titles and descriptions. Another difference I spotted is in how and if these channels are categorised on Spotify. The factual channels are typically marked up with several categories, the most common being “Science,” “Society,” “Educational,” and “Culture.” The climate obstruction channels are less likely to have any categories attached to them at all. The exception is The Heartland daily, which is categorised as “Government.”

Why are podcasts so good at spreading misinformation? As opposed to professional journalists on radio or television news, podcast hosts often have more personable and informal styles of talking, perceived as authentic by listeners. This tone can make listeners more likely to believe claims made by the hosts. The long format of podcast episodes where topics are returned to and discussed at length can also play a part in making people accept misinformation as true. If we repeatedly read or hear the same piece of information, we are more prone to trust it. There is also a lack of content moderation on the streaming platforms where podcasts are published, and they can be lax in enforcing their own content guidelines. This study shows that serious channels with the ambition to inform about climate change issues share the space with channels with a dubious agenda and which are all talk and few facts.