How Do Misinformation and Disinformation Shape Public Understanding and Policy Responses to Climate Science?

The report asks how misinformation and disinformation about climate science shape public understanding and policy responses. To answer this, the authors conducted a systematic review of 300 peer-reviewed studies published between 2015 and 2025. The review examined who spreads misleading climate information, what messages they promote, which channels are used, who is targeted, and with what effects. Findings show that powerful actors, including fossil fuel companies, governments, and political parties, systematically distort climate science. Up to 44% of airline industry climate statements were found misleading, and bots generated 15–25% of climate-related tweets, amplifying denialist narratives and eroding trust.

Full Citation and Link to Article

International Panel on the Information Environment [E. Elbeyi, K. Bruhn Jensen, M. Aronczyk, J. Asuka, G. Ceylan, J. Cook, G. Erdelyi, H. Ford, C. Milani, E. Mustafaraj, F. Ogenga, S. Yadin, P. N. Howard, S. Valenzuela (eds.)]. “Information Integrity about Climate Science: A Systematic Review.” Zurich, Switzerland: IPIE, 2025. Synthesis Report, SR2025.1. doi: 10.61452/BTZP3426. https://doi.org/10.61452/BTZP3426

Extended Summary

Central Research Question

The central question of this synthesis report is: How do misinformation and disinformation about climate science affect public understanding, political debate, and policy responses, and what strategies can strengthen information integrity? The report examines the origins, channels, and effects of misleading climate information and evaluates the extent to which coordinated campaigns by corporations, governments, political parties, and other actors have distorted scientific consensus. It also explores the degree to which such disruption influences trust in science, political action, and climate policy. In addition, the review seeks to identify evidence-based solutions for restoring the accuracy, reliability, and transparency of information environments.

Previous Literature

Earlier scholarship on climate change communication has often concentrated on specific aspects: social media discourse, conspiracy theories, greenwashing by corporations, or the persistence of climate change denial. These studies collectively documented that misleading climate narratives can spread widely, but they were fragmented across disciplines. Research in media and communication highlighted polarization, echo chambers, and algorithm-driven amplification of misinformation. Political science and sociology focused on the role of populism and ideology in sustaining denial. Legal and policy studies addressed regulation and litigation, while computer science investigated bots, trolls, and algorithmic manipulation.

Although these studies provided important insights, they were often narrow in scope. Few reviews attempted to integrate findings across fields, assess the state of knowledge systematically, or identify research gaps. A particular shortcoming has been the underrepresentation of research on the Global South, despite its disproportionate vulnerability to climate impacts. This synthesis report fills that void by reviewing 300 peer-reviewed publications from 2015–2025, offering the most comprehensive assessment of climate information integrity to date.

Data

The data for this study consisted of published peer-reviewed literature. The authors conducted a systematic search across three major databases—Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed—using keywords linking climate change to terms such as misinformation, disinformation, greenwashing, denial, obstruction, and conspiracy. The initial search produced 2,276 unique publications. Screening and filtering reduced this to 974 relevant papers, then to 625 that were peer-reviewed and published in English since 2015. A citation-impact filter using normalized citation scores (cutoff 0.6) further refined the dataset to 269 influential studies. Supplementary searches added 13 legal publications and 18 from computer science, resulting in a final dataset of 300 publications.

This literature covered multiple geographies and actors, though with significant biases: about 70 studies focused on the United States, while entire regions such as Africa were represented by only one study. The review thus represents the most substantial consolidated dataset on climate misinformation and disinformation but also reveals global asymmetries in research coverage.

Methods

The report employed systematic review methodology, guided by PRISMA standards. Studies were coded and analyzed using both quantitative and qualitative approaches. Network mapping of abstracts and keywords (via Bibliometrix and VOSviewer) identified six thematic clusters: (1) economic actors and greenwashing, (2) political movements and populism, (3) attitudes and conspiracy beliefs, (4) types of misinformation and online polarization, (5) public responses including education, and (6) news coverage and framing.

Qualitative coding was conducted to extract findings relevant to six communication process questions adapted from Harold Lasswell’s model: Who? Says what? In which channel? To whom? With what effect? With what potential solutions? Two trained research assistants coded the texts, supervised by a consulting scientist and the panel chair. This coding sought to synthesize findings rather than quantify distributions.

The report also included a gap analysis to identify underexplored domains. Unlike systematic reviews, gap analyses lack standard methodologies, but here the authors used the synthesis to highlight missing evidence, especially concerning the Global South, comparative analyses, and interventions tested at scale.

Findings/Size Effects

The findings are organized according to the six guiding research questions.

1. Who spreads misleading information?

   
   

   • Fossil fuel companies (ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, TotalEnergies, Peabody) engaged in dual strategies of denial and greenwashing. These industries both denied climate realities and simultaneously promoted symbolic sustainability initiatives.

   • Other industries, including airlines, tourism, fast food, and animal agriculture, engaged in misleading statements. For instance, 44% of airline industry claims about emissions were classified as misleading.

   • Governments and political parties frequently undermined climate information integrity. U.S. Republican rhetoric relied heavily on anecdotes and denial, while European rightwing populist parties framed climate policy as economic or cultural threats. Russia used state media and troll farms to circulate denialist narratives.

   • Think tanks such as the Heartland Institute and transnational coalitions of conservative organizations provided institutional bases for denial and skepticism, often funded by opaque networks like Donors Trust.

   • Social media bots and trolls significantly amplified misleading narratives. Studies found 15% of Twitter accounts discussing climate issues were bots, and during U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, 25% of related tweets came from bots.

   
   

2. Says what?

   
   

   • Denial included rejection of climate science, denial of anthropogenic causes, or discrediting of scientists.

   • Skepticism often replaced outright denial, shifting toward questioning the feasibility of solutions. For example, evidence skepticism (denying human causation) and response skepticism (doubting policy effectiveness) both appeared.

   • Conspiracy theories framed climate change as a hoax serving elite agendas, often linked with broader anti-science narratives. Greta Thunberg was a frequent target.

   • Greenwashing practices were common. A study of 725 corporate sustainability reports found symbolic narratives far outweighed substantive action.

   • Delay and obstruction were framed as “new denial,” where narratives emphasized national identity, non-transformative solutions, or exaggerated costs of policies.

   
   

3. In which channels?

   
   

   • Traditional media, especially conservative outlets, amplified denial and skepticism. Rightwing newspapers in the UK and U.S. gave disproportionate coverage to Climategate and skeptical op-eds.

   • Social media facilitated echo chambers and polarization. Algorithms, bots, and targeted advertising (such as fossil fuel ads on Facebook during the 2020 U.S. elections) reinforced pre-existing beliefs.

   • Source media (corporate reports, press releases) became direct channels for misleading information, bypassing journalistic scrutiny.

   
   

4. To whom?

   
   

   • While global audiences were exposed, particular focus fell on youth, older adults, and politically conservative populations. Religious groups were also targeted. In some contexts, skepticism was tied to national identity, as in China (climate change framed as Western conspiracy).

   
   

5. With what effects?

   
   

   • Exposure to misinformation eroded trust in science, polarized attitudes, and reduced support for climate policy.

   • Size effects included the bot amplification noted earlier, as well as survey findings such as 36% of Norwegians denying human causes of climate change. Media studies showed that skeptical frames were prevalent across mainstream outlets, not just partisan sources, influencing broader public perceptions.

   • Emotional appeals (fear, anger, cynicism) increased the reach of denialist narratives relative to factual content.

   
   

6. With what potential solutions?

   
   

   • Four strategies consistently showed positive impacts: legislation for standardized carbon reporting, litigation to enforce standards, coalition-building among stakeholders, and education for both policymakers and the public.

   • Additional proposals included platform regulation, increased transparency, scientific outreach, and inoculation strategies (prebunking misinformation).

   • Evidence suggested that legal action against false corporate claims can deter greenwashing, and coalition networks amplify corrective voices.

   
   
   
   

Conclusion

The systematic review demonstrates that information integrity is central to the climate crisis. Misleading information is not random or incidental but often the result of coordinated campaigns by powerful actors with vested economic or political interests. Such campaigns exploit media infrastructures and social platforms to sow doubt, delay action, and undermine trust in science.

The review underscores that denial has evolved into more subtle forms of skepticism, obstruction, and greenwashing, which may be more persuasive and harder to counter. Size effects indicate significant impacts: nearly half of airline emissions claims were misleading, a quarter of Paris Agreement withdrawal tweets came from bots, and over a third of Norwegians denied human causation despite accepting climate change.

At the same time, the review identifies interventions that work. Regulatory enforcement, legal accountability, cross-sector coalitions, and education initiatives all produce measurable improvements in information integrity. Still, research gaps remain acute, especially in the Global South, where climate impacts are severe but research scarce.

Ultimately, the report concludes that the integrity of climate information environments is essential for effective policy action. Without accurate, consistent, reliable, and transparent information, public trust falters and political will stagnates. With strengthened information integrity, however, societies can align more closely with the scientific consensus and accelerate the global response to climate change.