Investigating Paid Climate Misinformation Campaigns

In an unprecedented move, the Geelong Advertiser has come under fire for publishing what critics describe as climate misinformation in a paid advertisement. The half-page advertisement titled “The science of fossil fuel CO₂ for plant nutrition” contained claims that experts have labeled as demonstrably false and misleading.

The Centre for Climate Safety has challenged the newspaper’s decision to publish the advertisement, which claimed that global atmospheric CO₂ levels have “declined to a near record low of near 422 ppm.” This assertion directly contradicts established scientific measurements showing that atmospheric CO₂ is actually at its highest level in at least three million years and continuing to rise at approximately 2.5-3 ppm annually.

“The climate crisis is serious. The public deserves better than paid misinformation dressed up as science,” said Mik Aidt, Director of the Centre for Climate Safety and co-host of The Sustainable Hour on 94.7 The Pulse.

The advertisement’s central visual element—a graph depicting CO₂ levels over the past 600 million years—has been criticized for presenting misleading conclusions despite using legitimate geological data. Climate scientists argue that comparing modern conditions to Earth 300 million years ago creates a false equivalency, as the planet had different solar output, continental arrangements, oceanic systems, and no human civilization at that time.

“What the graph deliberately obscures is the unprecedented rate of change happening now,” explained a climate researcher familiar with the issue. “Current CO₂ is rising at a geologically abrupt rate that ecosystems and societies haven’t evolved to handle. The speed of change is the critical risk factor that this presentation completely ignores.”

The advertisement was attributed to “The Climate Study Group,” an organization that is not recognized as a legitimate scientific institution. The named authors included William Happer and Richard Lindzen, both long-standing climate contrarians whose views stand in opposition to the overwhelming scientific consensus.

The controversy comes at a particularly significant moment in climate policy and law. In July 2025, the International Court of Justice delivered an advisory opinion clarifying states’ obligations regarding climate change. While not creating criminal liability, the opinion affirmed that governments have a duty to prevent foreseeable harm from greenhouse gas emissions and to protect the rights of both current and future generations.

“As climate impacts intensify and legal frameworks evolve, the tolerance for knowingly publishing false climate claims will continue to narrow,” noted Aidt. “Running demonstrably false claims as paid advertising may one day be seen not just as irresponsible, but as negligent.”

The publication of the advertisement raises important questions about media responsibility and standards. Newspapers regularly make editorial decisions about what content to publish and typically refuse advertisements that are misleading or potentially harmful in other domains. Critics argue that climate misinformation should be subject to the same scrutiny.

“This is not a question of political viewpoint,” Aidt emphasized. “It is a question of factual correctness and foreseeable harm. Publishing misleading claims about atmospheric CO₂ and climate risk—even as paid advertising—deserves explanation, just as it would in areas such as health or finance.”

The Centre for Climate Safety has invited the editor of the Geelong Advertiser to explain how the advertisement met the paper’s standards for accuracy and public responsibility.

The incident highlights the evolving understanding of climate communication as an issue of public safety rather than merely political debate, as impacts from climate change increasingly affect food security, public health, infrastructure, and community resilience.