Sources of misinformation on global heating

Climate misinformation doesn’t always scream conspiracy. A lot of it sounds… reasonable. Studies show that outrage-based misinformation spreads way faster than truth online. One MIT study found that false stories on Twitter were 70% more likely to be retweeted than true ones. It’s often not just what is said—but how. Here are a few red flags I’ve learned to look for: ‣ Fear-based messaging: “They’re coming for your car!” or “Climate laws will cost you your home!” If it’s tapping into panic or outrage, pause before you share. That emotional hook is the point. ‣ Fake experts: Remember that 1998 “Global Warming Petition Project”? It claimed 31,000+ scientists opposed climate action—but 99% of the signatories had no climate science background. Just being a “scientist” isn’t enough. ‣ False equivalence: A favorite talking point is “California’s blackouts are caused by wind and solar.” Not true. It’s mostly extreme heat, outdated infrastructure, and fossil fuel failures. Renewables actually help stabilize the grid. ‣ Omitting key context: A 2023 study found that 93% of climate news stories didn’t mention animal agriculture—despite it being a major emissions driver and cause of deforestation. When whole sectors are left out of the conversation, that’s a red flag too. Misinformation doesn’t always look wild or conspiratorial. Sometimes it’s subtle, professional, and designed to sound like common sense. But if we don’t learn to spot these tactics, we’ll keep losing ground. If you work in media, education, or comms—what are some other warning signs you’ve noticed? #ClimateScience #Misinformation

Insightful💡 "They are supposed to be the climate-savers’ gold standard — the key data on which the world relies in its efforts to lower greenhouse gas emissions and hold global warming in check. But the national inventories of emissions supplied to the United Nations climate convention (UNFCCC) by most countries are anything but reliable, according to a growing body of research. The data supplied to the UNFCCC, and published(1) on its website, are typically out of date, inconsistent, and incomplete. For most countries, “I would not put much value, if any, on the submissions,” says Glen Peters of the Centre for International Climate Research in Norway, a longtime analyst of emissions trends. The data from large emitters is as much open to questions as that from smaller and less industrialised nations. In China, the uncertainties around its carbon dioxide emissions from burning coal are larger than the total emissions of many major industrial countries. And companies preparing data for its carbon-trading system have been accused of widespread data fraud. In the United States, an analysis published(2) this month of the air over the country’s oil and natural gas fields found that they emit three times more methane — a gas responsible for a third of current warming — than the government has reported." 1) https://lnkd.in/e-qhZ9nS 2) https://lnkd.in/eKcNgGim Read more https://lnkd.in/exAHHXEE #future #sustainability #climatechange #emissions #data #climateaction #climategoals #unitednations

I've been covering climate disinformation for a very long time and something that's been stuck in my craw the past couple of years is the fact that people often talk about it as something that happened in the past. But with so many of the climate "solutions" the fossil fuel industry proposes, the exact same issues are continuing to play out: they know these aren't really solutions, they know that they will never scale, and that is why they push them. It's part of the "discourses of delay" that social scientists talk about, or what Alex Steffen calls "predatory delay." The industry spends billions of dollars a year to fund university research, lobbying, advertising, and PR campaigns that create the illusion that its preferred "solutions" will work, even as its own scientists and technologists are telling it they won't. They hire management consultancies to draw up charts and graphs that lend credibility to these "solutions" too, and then those consultancies can throw up their hands and say "we just did the analysis they asked for, we didn't know they were going to use it to obstruct climate action!" Over the course of this summer we'll be running a new investigative series at Drilled Media digging into these efforts. Loads of both web and audio stories coming your way, but first up, a deep dive from me and Andy Rowell on how U.S. LNG producers are trying to position liquefied natural gas—a fossil fuel—as a climate solution, and use that "green" cred to lobby both EU and US politicians on increasing U.S. LNG exports to Europe. https://lnkd.in/gbFWNpcb

BREAKING: Changing Markets Foundation new report exposes how a group of misinfluecers, such as pro-industry scientists, carnivorous diet doctors and nutritionists, organised to undermine the launch of EAT-Lancet report in 2019. Our findings show two industry-linked hashtags around which the attack converged, and how a tight group of seemingly independent experts continuously tagged each other and posted each other's content, leading to misinformation peaks in the run-up and after the report's launch. This investigation breaks new ground by creating a heatmap of the online backlash to identify the most influential voices. Together with fresh evidence of industry planning, we shed new light on the degree to which the backlash was orchestrated and has become a template for possible further attacks on climate science underpinning food system transformation. Published in early January 2019, the EAT-Lancet paper offered a framework for a ‘planetary health diet’ that, in a world of 10 billion people, balanced human nutrition with ecological sustainability. It was devised by 37 leading scientists from 16 countries working in human health, agriculture, political science and environmental sustainability. The paper is one of the most influential scientific reports ever released, but its potential implications for the meat industry triggered a coordinated online backlash. The report underscores the growing threat that mis- and disinformation poses to meaningful climate action, something we will explore during our event at Climate Week NYC 2025 today. It also represents a threat for the launch of the second EAT Lancet, expected in early October.

📣 Major new U.S. climate litigation: The Justice Department of Puerto Rico is targeting 8 fossil fuel companies in a 1 billion dollar lawsuit. The Justice Department is drawing on civil, environmental and antitrust frameworks. Puerto Rico joins a growing list of cities, counties, and states in the U.S. that are suing big oil over its climate misinformation and climate impact. 𝐇𝐞𝐫𝐞’𝐬 𝐚 𝐛𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞: ▶ It’s another case where it is alleged that fossil fuel companies have continued to cause pollution despite their decades-long knowledge of the devastating consequences of their operations. ▶ Even more so, the companies carried out disinformation campaigns to discredit the scientific consensus on climate change and create doubt in the minds of the general public. ▶ The lawsuit also refers to the greenwashing the companies allegedly engage in. Specifically highlighting (1) exaggerations of investments in certain low-carbon energy resources, without disclosing that these are negligible compared to their continued involvement in fossil fuels; and (2) marketing fossil fuel products as environmentally friendly despite being major contributors to climate change. ▶ The misinformation helped sustain the fossil fuel market which has caused devastating climate change impacts in Puerto Rico. ▶ The Justice Department wants the fossil fuel companies to compensate for the costs of damages caused by climate change, rather than the taxpayer having to carry the burden. 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐞: ▶ Fossil fuel companies love resorting to energy security and energy affordability arguments in climate litigation. This Puerto Rican lawsuit pre-empts these arguments by stating that it’s the companies’ own misinformation that has caused our dependence on fossil fuels. ▶ At least one of the defendants is a subsidiary that is mostly involved with the selling and marketing of fossil fuel products. This fits neatly within the trend of accountability for ‘advertised emissions’. *Everything here is alleged. #ClimateLitigation #BigOil #PuertoRico

Massive investigative report reveals rip-and-reapply tactics from the fossil fuel industry are now deployed by the largest meat and dairy corporations to deny, delay and derail climate action in food. ⚠️ The Merchants of Doubt tactics: 🚫 DISTRACT us with greenwashing 🚫 DELAY action with weak voluntary commitments 🚫 DERAIL climate action through lobbying efforts 🚫 Spread DISINFORMATION on social media 🚫 DOWNPLAY climate impact with misleading metrics 🚫 DEMAND that public dollars fund unproven technofixes This is not the way to do business. We deserve better. ✊ Let's advocate for transparency. Let's support sustainable practices and local farmers. Let’s talk about our diets and push for healthy, sustainable and responsible ways to feed the planet 🌍. Full report by Changing Markets Foundation here: https://lnkd.in/eWws7q8v #NewMerchantsOfDoubt #climate #sustainability

A Sombre Reflection: When Influence Eclipses Science in Climate Discourse 🌡️🌍 The recent "interview" between Elon Musk and Donald Trump is a stark reminder of the perilous state of public discourse on critical scientific issues. 🗣️🚫 Experts have rightfully labelled this exchange as "the dumbest climate conversation of all time" – a damning indictment that should give us all pause. https://lnkd.in/eKUuV2zD Trump's glib remark that rising sea levels will merely create "more oceanfront property" is not just woefully misguided; it's a dangerous oversimplification of a complex global threat. Equally concerning is Musk's stance against "vilifying" the oil and gas industry, which blatantly disregards the urgent imperative for a rapid transition to sustainable energy sources. 🛢️➡️☀️ The gravity of these statements is amplified by the positions of immense influence that both of them seem to enjoy. Trump, as a presidential candidate, threatens to unravel years of climate progress if elected. His declared intention to dismantle current climate policies and potentially withdraw from the Paris Agreement again represents a clear and present danger to global climate action efforts. 🏛️🔨 Equally troubling is the platform on which this conversation unfolded. X, under Musk's stewardship, has devolved into a megaphone for far-right ideologies. It has become a gutter of racist, homophobic, xenophobic, and overall, extreme and despicable views https://lnkd.in/eQRQEnCT. Musk's dual role as owner and most-followed user grants him unprecedented power to shape public opinion, sadly. His recent political endorsements and confrontations with governments (e.g., the UK Prime Minister, the EU regulator) over misinformation policies raise serious alarms about X's integrity as a public forum. 📢🔊 We are thus witnessing a dangerous convergence of misinformation (and disinformation) and unparalleled reach. The propagation of scientifically baseless ideas through a platform with global influence creates a fertile ground for the proliferation of climate change denial and delay tactics. 🌱❌ Accordingly: 1. How can we effectively counter this tide of misinformation? 🛡️ 2. What stringent measures should be imposed on tech leaders and platform owners to safeguard scientific integrity in public discourse? 🔬🔐 3. In what ways can we elevate evidence-based climate discussions in a media ecosystem that often prioritizes sensationalism over accuracy? 📊📈 The magnitude of these challenges cannot be overstated, nor can the criticality of addressing them. It is important that we devise strategies and, indeed, laws and regulations to foster informed dialogue and hold our leaders in both politics and technology strictly accountable for the information they disseminate. #ClimateActionNow #MediaAccountability #ScientificIntegrity #InformedDiscourse

Mis/disinformation is holding back climate progress at the consumer and policy levels. In high-income countries, especially the US, we're seeing a slowdown in electric vehicle adoption. Consumers incorrectly think that they're more expensive and more polluting that gas vehicles, over the lifetime of their ownership. Both are false, but those claims are pushed by big oil. https://lnkd.in/eXU9YSEY Meanwhile, the ramifications of this slowdown are being felt by EV and battery manufacturers. A plant in Sweden recently shuttered, ending 1,600 jobs and claimed that "headwinds" of slowing purchases was to blame. https://lnkd.in/eh5kH3TH This also has big implications for the US trying to onshore domestic manufacturing in EV and other electric/clean tech.

How does climate disinformation spread — and how can we respond? 📣 Today, Anthony Leiserowitz of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication moderated an informative conversation on how climate change disinformation spreads, groups that are susceptible, and how organizations and stakeholders can respond. Some key takeaways: 💡 Philip Newell on false perceptions: Social media creates a “false social reality” that can make popular policy (like climate solutions) feel unpopular — and make unpopular rhetoric (like climate denial) seem popular. 💡 Cristina López G. on online communities: Understanding communities is critical to understanding how disinformation moves. Content is a way to signal that you are part of a community, and it’s difficult to get your message to resonate in an adversarial community. 💡 Sander van der Linden on “pre-bunking”: It’s hard to debunk an ingrained myth. “Pre-bunking” — exposing audiences to manipulative techniques being used — can help preemptively refute disinformation and neutralize its effects. Recommended resources included the Debunking Handbook, which distills research findings and expert advice about debunking misinformation. Lots to reflect on; thank you to the panelists for the insights! Photo credit: Bank Phrom