Climate disinformation has become a defining challenge of our era, deeply embedded in both digital and traditional media landscapes [1]. It is not the result of isolated error but often a coordinated strategy by influential actors to delay, distract, or derail meaningful climate action [1].
Channels of Spread
Misinformation and disinformation circulate on both traditional outlets and newer, professional platforms such as LinkedIn and other social media channels, leveraging high levels of platform trust and the perceived authority of users [2].
Social media giants (Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, X and TikTok) amplify climate misinformation with high engagement rates, often outpacing trustworthy sources, particularly during high-profile climate protest events [3]. Here, algorithms that maximize user engagement routinely prioritize emotionally charged content, which too often turns out to be misleading [3].Dominant narratives rarely deny climate change directly but instead weaken trust in responses by portraying solutions as flawed [2]. For example, some posts claimed solar and wind are “too expensive” or “can’t provide reliable energy” [2].
Many platforms lack strong, climate-specific moderation policies, and even those that do (e.g. TikTok) struggle to consistently enforce them [4]. Regulatory frameworks such as the European Digital Services Act remain incomplete, as they fail to recognize climate disinformation as a clear systemic risk [1]. As a result, enforcement continues to depend on voluntary or weakly implemented guidelines. A concrete step forward is the strengthening of the EU Code of Practice into a binding Code of Conduct under the DSA, giving it enforcement power with potential investigations and fines [1]. This progress now requires bold political leadership from the European Commission to ensure effective compliance [1, 4].
Psychological Factors in Spread and Susceptibility
But why do people fall for these tactics? Psychologically, a number of cognitive biases are at play [5]. For example, confirmation bias and motivated reasoning lead users to accept information that aligns with their existing beliefs, while emotionally resonant narratives that evoke fear, outrage, or humour trigger snap judgments and reduce critical scrutiny [5]. The result is the formation of digital echo chambers, where algorithms and personal networks combine to repeatedly expose individuals to the same misleading ideas from multiple sources, reinforcing their impact [5].
After recent power outages in Spain and Portugal, climate-skeptic voices rapidly framed the crisis as a consequence of unreliable renewables. These claims moved from social media into radio, television, and mainstream news, even though they were factually baseless claims [6]. During severe storms and floods, a flood of hoaxes and conspiracy theories quickly overwhelmed official messaging, causing confusion and undermining trust in institutional responses [6].
Evolving Tactics of Climate Disinformation
Although climate denial is still at play, as illustrated in the case of storm and flood events, disinformation tactics have evolved. More sophisticated forms of “strategic doubt” have emerged. In this form, disinformation actors present themselves as reasonable skeptics, framing delay and denial as cautious and prudent responses while portraying mainstream science as alarmist or politically biased. This more nuanced approach thrives in the grey zones of debate and uncertainty, often evading traditional fact-checking tools and making the disinformation harder to counter [2]. Moreover, these actors now exploit digital platforms’ algorithmic biases, leveraging social media, influencer campaigns, and podcast narratives to normalize skepticism, amplify confusion, and delay urgent climate action, turning strategic doubt into a powerful barrier to meaningful policy change.
Recognizing and Countering Disinformation and Misinformation
To counter these challenges, a broad societal response is needed [1, 5, 7, 8]. On an individual level, we need to become better at recognizing suspicious content: posts that disproportionately question solutions rather than science, or narratives that seek to blur the distinction between legitimate debate and strategic disinformation [1, 7, 8]. Education in digital and scientific literacy is also key [8]. Media training modeled on recent university-led interventions emphasizes hands-on skills, like applying frameworks for spotting classic disinformation narratives [8].
On the policy front, platforms should be required to increase transparency, curb engagement-driven amplification of climate misinformation, and integrate independent fact-checking systems [5]. There is also a need for regulation to define climate disinformation as a systemic risk [8].
Finally, advertisers, media companies, and tech firms should be held accountable for financing and distributing misleading climate content, with oversight mechanisms to track and penalize persistent offenders [5, 8].
