Countering Climate Misinformation: A Reasoned Approach

The growing threat of rage bait in climate change discourse has reached alarming levels, undermining legitimate environmental discussions with emotionally-charged content designed to provoke rather than inform.

Rage bait—content deliberately crafted to trigger outrage, fear, or moral superiority—has become so prevalent that Oxford named it the word of the year for 2025. This inflammatory content thrives particularly well in sustainability and climate discussions, where complex data intersects with political identity and deeply-held personal values.

“The sustainability field is especially vulnerable to oversimplified claims like ‘ESG is dead’ or declarations that electric vehicles harm the planet more than they help,” explains a recent analysis of the trend. Such statements often contain fragments of truth but remove critical context to generate emotional reactions.

As outright denial of human-caused climate change becomes increasingly difficult to defend scientifically, “new denial” arguments have emerged to undermine climate science and solutions. According to research, these evolved denial tactics now represent 70 percent of all climate denial content on YouTube, doubling over six years.

The formula for creating rage bait is straightforward: make exaggerated assertions, strip away relevant context, overstate implications, and present the result as factual. Modern generative AI tools have made producing such content faster and easier, according to Stanford University researchers.

Social media platforms have become breeding grounds for climate misinformation. A report by Global Witness found that during COP29, climate misinformation spread unchecked on TikTok, particularly in comment sections. Users frequently claimed climate change “isn’t real,” is a “hoax,” or a “made-up lie” on videos from major news organizations that received millions of views.

Sometimes the tactics are more subtle, such as posting snowy scenes with captions like “proof that climate change doesn’t exist”—a form of “feigned ignorance.” However, under the current administration, climate-related rage bait has become increasingly overt, with the president himself posting on Truth Social: “Record Cold Wave expected to hit 40 States… Could the Environmental Insurrectionists please explain—WHATEVER HAPPENED TO GLOBAL WARMING???”

The consumption patterns of modern news audiences exacerbate the problem. Pew Research Center reports that about one in five U.S. adults—and 37 percent of adults under 30—regularly get news from social media influencers. Yale Climate Connections recently noted that eight of the top ten online shows and personalities are spreading climate misinformation.

Podcast host Joe Rogan exemplified this issue last year when he repeatedly told his audience of millions that a scientific study showed Earth is cooling—a claim the study’s authors themselves have explicitly stated is false.

Experts recommend a three-part approach to combat rage bait’s influence. First, pause before engaging with inflammatory content. Creating distance between the initial emotional reaction and response diminishes rage bait’s power. Second, critically examine the framing by questioning what context might be missing, whether the scale has been distorted, and who benefits from the particular narrative.

Finally, resist the urge to engage in public takedowns, which often amplify rather than diminish misinformation. Instead, reframing the discussion can be more effective: acknowledging legitimate concerns while rejecting exaggerated conclusions.

For sustainability professionals, the challenge requires adopting what some call “grounded confidence”—embracing nuance and complexity without sacrificing clarity or conviction. This approach recognizes that sustainability isn’t about perfect solutions but rather about making directional progress within imperfect systems.

“If rage bait feeds on uncertainty and speed, sustainability survives on patience and perspective,” notes one industry observer. “In today’s information economy, that might be the most sustainable choice we can make.”