Pope Warns of Misinformation as Senate Inquiry Examines Climate Truth Crisis

In an address to global news agencies this week, Pope Leo emphasized the critical nature of information as “a public good” that requires protection in today’s digital landscape. The pontiff voiced support for “courageous entrepreneurs and information engineers” to prevent communication degradation through clickbait, disinformation, and unfair competition, according to Vatican News.

The Pope’s concerns echo a growing sentiment worldwide that misinformation threatens public discourse, particularly on pressing issues like climate change. This challenge has become especially apparent in Australia, where the Senate Select Committee on Information Integrity in Climate Change and Energy is currently examining how disinformation impacts climate policy and public understanding.

The committee has received numerous submissions from media organizations, academic institutions, health professionals, and advocacy groups, revealing widespread concern about the integrity of climate information in public discourse.

Doctors for the Environment Australia (DEA) presented evidence that climate misinformation represents a serious public health threat. The medical group drew parallels to historical fights against tobacco industry misinformation, arguing that voluntary codes and self-regulation have proven ineffective. Their submission recommends legislation, litigation, public education campaigns, and international coalitions to combat deliberate misinformation.

“False and misleading information about climate change is often intentionally spread by powerful actors, undermining public trust in science and obstructing evidence-based policymaking,” DEA stated, calling for stronger transparency requirements and investment in media literacy programs.

Local news outlets, represented by the Local and Independent News Association (LINA), positioned themselves as essential but endangered frontline defenders against misinformation. The association, representing newsrooms that produce over 10,000 stories monthly for an audience of 12 million, highlighted how local journalists often detect and correct false claims before they gain national traction.

LINA cited a compelling case study from the Illawarra Flame, a small NSW south coast publisher, which debunked a fabricated academic report falsely claiming wind turbines kill whales. The false report had circulated on Facebook, in national media, and was even referenced in Parliament before local journalism revealed it didn’t exist.

However, LINA warned that platform decisions and funding pressures are undermining this vital function. The submission specifically noted how Meta’s de-prioritization of news has sharply reduced the reach of small publishers, pointing to international examples like Canada’s wildfire season, when Facebook’s news ban hampered emergency communication.

The Australian Associated Press (AAP) emphasized its role in providing impartial, fact-based journalism nationwide. In the 2024-25 financial year alone, AAP’s Climate Desk and Future Economies Desk contributed more than 600 original stories on climate and energy issues, while its FactCheck initiative has rebutted 237 climate-related misinformation claims over five years.

Academic submissions revealed consensus on the threat but offered varying approaches to address it. The Australian National University’s Institute for Climate, Energy and Disaster Solutions highlighted how algorithms promote sensationalist content and called for systemic interventions rather than content-level regulation. Queensland University of Technology’s Digital Media Research Centre documented the rise of “new denial” tactics that cast doubt on climate solutions rather than the science itself.

The UTS Centre for Media Transition advocated for a systems-level approach focused on information integrity rather than targeting individual actors. The center warned that misinformation stems from broader failures in the information environment, driven partly by engagement-focused platform design.

The Australian Human Rights Commission framed the issue through the lens of international human rights law, supporting legislative reform with strong transparency requirements while cautioning that poorly designed regulations could threaten freedom of expression.

Conservative advocacy group Advance presented a contrasting view, challenging the premise of the inquiry itself and arguing that terms like “misinformation” are used to silence legitimate political dissent. Their submission illustrated the very rhetorical techniques other contributors identified as problematic—casting doubt on institutions, neutral terminology, and the concept of verifiable facts.

As the Senate inquiry progresses, the submissions collectively underscore what’s at stake: climate misinformation not only distorts public debate but risks policy failure, health impacts, and democratic erosion. While solutions vary from strong regulation to structural reform, there’s broad agreement that the status quo is untenable.

The challenge extends beyond climate policy to the fundamental integrity of public discourse in an era of unprecedented information complexity and manipulation.