Bot Networks Spread Climate Disinformation, Sowing Division and Mistrust

Bot-like accounts actively participating in political discussions are increasingly sharing climate disinformation to generate fear, hate, and mistrust against climate action advocates, according to a recent investigation.

Earlier this year, Global Witness published findings identifying 45 bot-like accounts on X (formerly Twitter) that had been amplifying divisive political content since the UK General Election. These accounts spread “Great Replacement” conspiracy theories and responded to global events with racist content, disinformation, and conspiracy narratives.

The investigation identified these accounts using a methodology that looked for several “red flags,” including prolific posting patterns, minimal original content, and indications the accounts were rapidly created to respond to specific events. Researchers also conducted manual reviews to identify any signs of authentic human behavior.

Upon deeper analysis in August 2024, researchers discovered that 14 of these accounts regularly shared the hashtag #ClimateScam, often alongside other conspiracy hashtags like #geoengineering. Among mentions of “climate change,” the most frequently used hashtag was the explicitly climate-denialist #climatescam.

The investigation revealed widespread climate conspiracism and denial through hashtags such as #netzeroscam, #climatecult, #climatechangecult, and #bladerunners—the latter referring to individuals who vandalize cameras enforcing low-emissions traffic zones. Twenty-two of the 45 accounts shared content referencing either a “climate cult” or “climate scam.”

These accounts went beyond simply denying climate change as an existential threat. Many propagated conspiracy theories claiming that climate action proponents themselves pose the real danger to society.

Some accounts pushed narratives that climate action threatens both the environment and human life, suggesting that solar panels and wind farms cause significant environmental damage. These environmental measures were portrayed as “sacrifices” demanded by what they termed the “cult” of climate action. More extreme claims suggested the purpose of climate policies is to deliberately reduce people’s quality of life or that “geoengineering” aims to make people sick and compliant.

Another common narrative claimed that climate action serves as a cover for elites seeking profit and governments looking to control populations. Some accounts explicitly called for resistance against environmental policies, supporting “blade runners” who vandalize Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) cameras as a form of protest against alleged surveillance.

Interestingly, climate discussions among these accounts appear closely tied to political identity. While the accounts mentioned “climate” or “climate change” relatively infrequently—3,547 times out of over 600,000 posts between May 22 and July 22—all accounts referenced climate change at least once during this period.

Posts often declared political stances on climate alongside other positions, such as opposing LGBTQIA+ rights, vaccination, or support for Ukraine. Conversely, supporting climate action was frequently bundled with other progressive positions and characterized by some accounts as representing “globalists” or “far left fascists.”

Not all bot-like accounts opposed climate action, however. Some posted in support of climate or ecological initiatives, typically expressing traditionally left-wing political views alongside climate concerns.

These accounts don’t exist in isolation but frequently share content linking to external websites. The most retweeted account among climate change posts was a media site known to promote conspiracy theories. Researchers also found 64 other accounts, collectively with over 300,000 followers, mentioning these bot-like accounts when posting about climate change.

When contacted by Global Witness, X responded that they had “reviewed the accounts you have shared, and there is no evidence they are engaged in platform manipulation.” X claimed the methodology “relies on limited data and is incorrectly classifying real people as bots.” However, when asked how they determined these were real people, X did not provide specific information.

The investigation highlights the challenges researchers face with limited data access as platforms like X and Meta continue to restrict publicly available information. Without stronger legislation requiring greater transparency from social media platforms, researchers and the public must rely on imperfect methodologies to identify potential manipulation.