Climate Misinformation vs Disinformation: Understanding the Threat to Climate Action

Inaccurate information about climate change represents one of the most significant challenges to effective climate policy, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This problem manifests in two distinct forms: climate misinformation, which stems from human error, and climate disinformation, which involves the deliberate spread of false information.

The 2024 Global Risks Report highlighted misinformation and disinformation across all topics as the most pressing short-term risk to human society, while identifying extreme weather events as the top long-term threat. This creates a dangerous intersection where obscuring climate facts can significantly amplify harm. Research has shown that false information spreads substantially faster and more broadly on social media platforms than accurate information, compounding the problem.

Climate misinformation typically emerges from genuine misunderstandings, incomplete information, or misinterpreted data. While those sharing such content may have no malicious intent, the spread of inaccurate information still undermines climate action efforts.

Climate disinformation represents a more deliberate form of falsehood. Those spreading disinformation knowingly share untruths, often to protect specific interests at the expense of broader society. These actors may employ sophisticated tactics designed to undermine scientific consensus on climate change or downplay the severity of climate impacts.

In practice, distinguishing between misinformation and disinformation can be challenging, especially given the surge of false climate information on social media platforms. Studies by organizations including the BBC, Center for Countering Digital Hate, and Stop Funding Heat have documented this troubling trend. Adding to the complexity, content created with deceptive intent can be unwittingly shared by well-meaning individuals, blurring the line between the two categories.

Evolution of Climate Denial Narratives

Traditional climate denial, which rejects the scientific consensus on human-caused global warming, represents one of the oldest forms of climate disinformation. This approach either completely denies climate change exists, questions its extent, challenges the severity of impacts, or disputes the role of human activities in driving climate change.

This denial strategy gained momentum in the late 20th century as scientific evidence began linking fossil fuel combustion to rising carbon dioxide levels. The Global Climate Coalition (GCC), a US-based fossil fuel industry lobbying group formed in 1989 following the establishment of the IPCC, led coordinated efforts to sow doubt about climate science and oppose regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

While traditional denial remains prevalent in some circles, climate disinformation has evolved toward more sophisticated “delayism” tactics. Rather than outright denying climate change, these approaches acknowledge its existence while employing rhetorical strategies to delay meaningful action. According to the Center for Countering Digital Hate, such “new denial” claims now constitute approximately 70% of climate denial content on YouTube.

The Four Strategies of Climate Delayism

The Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change has identified 12 categories of “discourses of climate delay” that fall under four main strategies:

1. “Redirect responsibility” shifts the burden of climate action to individuals rather than governments, industries, or society at large. Oil giant BP deployed this tactic in 2004 by launching a personal carbon footprint calculator, diverting attention from the company’s substantial emissions. Another variation uses “whataboutism” to question why certain countries should act when others contribute more to emissions, as seen in arguments minimizing the UK’s responsibility due to its relatively small current contribution to global emissions.

2. “Push non-transformative solutions” offers superficial measures that fail to address root causes of climate change. This includes overemphasizing technological solutions like carbon capture while avoiding necessary reductions in fossil fuel consumption.

3. “Emphasize the downsides” deliberately overstates the short-term costs of climate policies. In the UK, this tactic has been used to exaggerate the economic impacts of transitioning to a net-zero economy, falsely claiming significant job losses or economic damage.

4. “Surrender” narratives argue that effective climate change mitigation is impossible due to societal structures or human nature, or that it’s already too late, so society should simply adapt or accept the consequences.

These narratives, whether spread intentionally or unknowingly, undermine climate science, confuse public understanding, and hinder informed decision-making critical to climate action.

Combating Climate Misinformation

While social media platforms like Facebook and TikTok have partnered with fact-checking organizations, the volume of climate misinformation necessitates additional approaches.

Research suggests “pre-bunking”—preemptively exposing people to weakened forms of misinformation—can build resilience against false information. Unlike reactive debunking, pre-bunking equips people to identify misleading content before it gains traction. This proactive strategy offers promise for governments and organizations seeking to counter the tide of climate misinformation and disinformation threatening effective climate action.