1. What is misinformation?

TWO FEATURES OF INFORMATION DISORDER

Two things to think about:

Intent - Was it shared to mislead, delay action, or cause harm?

Falseness - Is the claim accurate, misleading, or false?

MISINFORMATION

False or misleading information shared without the intention to cause harm

Includes: People repeating incorrect claims about global warming, misunderstanding cold weather as proof climate change is not real, misreading graphs, or sharing outdated statistics

MALINFORMATION

Accurate information shared in a misleading way to cause harm or confusion

Includes: Using a true short-term weather event to distract from long-term climate trends, selectively presenting data without context, leaking private information about scientists, or weaponising uncertainty to undermine trust

DISINFORMATION

False or misleading information deliberately shared to deceive, confuse, or delay climate action

Includes: Claims that climate change is a hoax, coordinated campaigns denying human influence on warming, manipulated charts, fake experts, or false claims about renewable energy and net zero policies

SUMMARY

• Misinformation = false or misleading, but not shared to harm
• Disinformation = false or misleading, and shared to deceive or harm
• Malinformation = true, but shared out of context or to cause harm

Often, misinformation is used as a catch all to describe these three thigns

DELAY

Climate misinformation matters because it can delay action on climate change.

HOW MISINFORMATION DELAYS ACTION

It can:

• create doubt
• confuse people
• undermine trust
• make action seem unnecessary or too costly

WHO IS CAUSING IT?

Climate misinformation is being funded and supported by thoes who have the most to loose from climate action.

• financial costs
• political costs
• social change
• regulation
• loss of power or influence

DELAY DOES NOT REQUIRE DISPROVING SCIENCE

It is often not necessary to prove climate science wrong to cause delay.

Instead, actors can just need to create enough uncertainty to stifle action.

CLIMATE CHANGE CONTAINS REAL UNCERTAINTY

Climate science is strong, but not every claim is equally certain.

This creates opportunities to blur the line between:

• uncertainty and ignorance
• debate and confusion
• caution and delay

FIVE LEVELS OF CLIMATE CLAIMS

One way to understand this is to think about different levels of truthfulness or testability.

Some claims are directly checkable.
Others become harder to verify and easier to frame selectively.

LEVEL 1: DIRECTLY TESTABLE CLAIMS

These are claims that can be checked directly against observations.

Example:

• “This year is no warmer than the last 10 years”

These are the easiest claims to debunk when false.

LEVEL 2: WELL-ESTABLISHED CLAIMS

These are claims supported by strong evidence and broad scientific consensus.

Example:

• “Global warming is mainly caused by human emissions”

These claims are not always about one single observation, but they are still highly reliable.

LEVEL 3: FUTURE CLAIMS WITH UNCERTAINTY

These are claims about what is likely to happen in the future.

Example:

• “If we cut our emmisions we will keep warming to below 2 Degrees”

These claims often come with a range of likely outcomes rather than one certain answer.

LEVEL 4: SPECULATIVE OR HARD-TO-TEST CLAIMS

These are claims that rely heavily on models, assumptions, or long-term projections.

Example:

• “Cutting gas out of the economy will create 10,000 jobs in the next 20 years”

These claims may still be serious, but they are more difficult to confirm directly.

LEVEL 5: OPINIONS AND VALUE JUDGEMENTS

These are not scientific claims in the same way.

Example:

• “Climate policy is going to destroy the economy”

These are political or moral judgements, not questions that science alone can settle.

WHY THESE LEVELS MATTER

The harder a claim is to test, the easier it can be to:

• exaggerate uncertainty
• cherry-pick evidence
• overstate confidence
• cast doubt
• build persuasive but misleading narratives

FROM UNCERTAINTY TO DELAY CLAIMS

Many misleading climate claims are difficult to test directly.

So rather than focusing only on whether each statement can be verified, it is often more useful to ask:

What is this trying to convince me of?

1. “IT’S NOT HAPPENING”

This is the claim that climate change is not real, not measurable, or not outside natural variation.

Examples include:

• “The climate has always changed”
• “Recent warming is exaggerated”
• “Cold weather shows global warming is false”

2. “IT’S NOT US”

This accepts that the climate may be changing, but denies that human activity is the main cause.

Examples include:

• blaming solar cycles
• claiming volcanoes emit more than humans
• saying warming is just part of a natural cycle

3. “IT’S NOT THAT BAD”

This accepts some warming, but downplays the seriousness of the risks.

Examples include:

• “Climate change will be manageable”
• “Warming will mostly be beneficial”
• “Scientists are exaggerating the harms”

4. “IT’S TOO HARD”

This shifts the argument from science to feasibility.

Examples include:

• “Decarbonisation is impossible”
• “Renewables cannot support modern life”
• “Cutting emissions will destroy the economy”

5. “THE MOVEMENT IS CORRUPT”

This attacks the motives of scientists, advocates, institutions, or policymakers.

Examples include:

• “Climate scientists are in it for funding”
• “Net zero is a scam”
• “Elites are using climate change to push their agenda”

6. “WE’VE ALREADY DONE ENOUGH”

This argues that meaningful action is already underway, so further change is unnecessary.

Examples include:

• overstating emissions reductions
• greenwashing
• presenting small reforms as sufficient

START WITH PEOPLE, NOT JUST FACTS

Simply telling people they are wrong often does not work.

Climate misinformation is shaped by: identity, trust values, emotion, repetition

Facts matter, but facts alone are often not enough.

WHY “JUST DEBUNK IT” IS NOT ENOUGH

People may reject corrections if they don’t allign with their broader world view

This means misinformation is not only a knowledge problem.

It is also a communication and trust problem.

THE MAIN RESPONSE: EDUCATION

The strongest long-term response is education.

This includes helping people to:

• understand how climate science works
• recognise misleading claims
• interpret graphs, statistics, and uncertainty
• distinguish evidence from opinion
• ask who benefits from delay

EDUCATION AS RESILIENCE

Build resilience so people are less vulnerable to future misinformation.

That means teaching people to:

• spot common climate delay claims
• recognise cherry-picking and false balance
• understand uncertainty without mistaking it for ignorance
• evaluate sources and evidence critically

TRUST ALSO MATTERS

Education works best when it comes from trusted messengers.

That can include:

• teachers
• scientists
• journalists
• community leaders
• peers