Excellent point. Always check sources.
Most people don't. That's why I tend to get annoyed with people who either don't have a background in science or who haven't studied science in many years because unfortunately in the US it's not just standard procedure to teach high school kids how to properly identify a scientific study. So you have a bunch of adults walking around that don't check the size or parameters of the study, who funded the study, whether or not there are multiple peer reviewed sources or a meta-study, and even linking to the study itself instead of just casually skimming how the media article frames the information.
An example I like to give is a small study done at Carnegie Mellon several years ago, where they claimed eating meat could be more sustainable environmentally than eating vegetables. However, it was a very small study, and the parameters of the study were to compare *get this*
raw meat to lettuce. The study in and of itself was fairly dishonest - most people don't eat raw meat, nor do vegetarians and vegans live off of lettuce. The story got traction in the media where people just gladly accepted the derpy headlines that announced in a generalized way that meat could be more sustainable than eating vegetables. The actual scientists at Carnegie Mellon later issued a formal apology, but the damage had already been done by mainstream media.
Another example that is common is conservative think tanks twisting results that make it appear as though there was greater sea ice at x date in the present, than on y date in a past in an attempt to "debunk" climate change. This was actually used as an example in one of my science classes as an undergrad. The conservative think tank in one case had misused a graph in a dishonest way, showing a brief moment where Arctic sea ice was approximately the same or slightly higher than one specific year in the past. Of course, the amount of sea ice went back down after that tiny blip and when the evidence was examined honestly and holistically over time, it was essentially a blatant lie.
UC Davis is the animal ag school. Pretty much everyone in CA knows that, I'm not sure why Lou didn't.