*By Dmitry Erokhin & Nadejda Komendantova
Climate change is not just a scientific or political issue – it is also an information challenge. Inaccurate and misleading claims about climate science have proliferated in media and online, often clouding public understanding of the facts. Misinformation refers to false or misleading information shared without malice, whereas disinformation denotes false information deliberately spread to deceive (United Nations Development Programme, 2025). The result is a polarized public and a persistent gap between scientific consensus and public perception on climate change (Magar et al., 2024). Researchers have identified misinformation tactics that appear again and again (Diethelm & McKee, 2009). This article examines several of the most prevalent tactics with examples and insights from the literature. By recognizing these tactics, readers can better guard against being misled by false climate narratives.
Cherry-picking data
Cherry-picking involves selectively presenting data that supports a particular claim, while ignoring the full dataset or context that would contradict that claim. For example, one might choose a brief timeframe where temperatures dipped in one region to argue that the planet is actually cooling, even though the long-term global trend is warming (Strauss, 2023). Taking two years of modest cooling or a cold winter in one locale can create the impression that scientific findings are in doubt when they are not. In reality, short-term fluctuations do not overturn the decades-long warming trend, but cherry-picking exploits the public’s limited exposure to the broader data.
This tactic has been observed and documented in both media and research. Major outlets and public figures sometimes cherry-pick or present data in a misleading frame to suit a narrative (Farmer and Cook, 2013). The goal is to distort public understanding of climate change, for instance, by highlighting a temporary slowdown in warming (while ignoring the subsequent record-hot years) or citing a single dissenting study while overlooking the vast majority of evidence. Such selective use of information can even skew perceptions of scientific consensus (Lewandowsky et al., 2013). In one remarkable study, Lewandowsky et al. (2016) put climate skepticism to the test by asking independent experts to evaluate contrarian climate claims without knowing their source. The study, essentially a “blind expert test” of climate denial arguments, found that once the full data were considered, the contrarian interpretations fell apart. In other words, many claims of climate skeptics failed when all the evidence was weighed, underscoring how heavily such claims often rely on picking favorable data points while ignoring the bigger picture. Cherry-picking is effective as a misleading tactic precisely because climate science involves complex datasets that can be confusing. Simplifying the narrative to one outlier datapoint can make misinformation seem convincing.
Fake experts
Another prevalent tactic is the promotion of fake experts. This refers to individuals who are portrayed as authorities on climate science but who in fact lack relevant expertise or represent a fringe minority view. Elevating these voices creates a false impression that experts disagree about climate change, when in reality an overwhelming majority of qualified climate scientists agree on the basics of human-caused warming. An example is a handful of contrarian scientists who repeatedly cast doubt on issues from tobacco smoke, even when their credentials were questionable or their views clearly not supported by evidence (Oreskes & Conway, 2010).
The fake expert tactic leverages the public’s deference to authority. If a person described as a leading scientist or MIT professor downplays climate change, some listeners may be swayed, even if that individual has no expertise in climatology or their claims are not supported by peer review. Research in communication shows that this tactic can indeed mislead people. For instance, experiments found that presenting participants with misinformation casting doubt on climate science via a phony expert significantly lowered their acceptance of the scientific consensus, unless the participants were first warned that this fake expert strategy is used, which largely neutralized its effect (Cook et al., 2017; Schmid-Petri & Bürger, 2022). Inoculating people by explaining the fake-expert tactic ahead of time made them more resistant to the misinformation.
Logical fallacies and flawed reasoning
Climate misinformation is rife with logical fallacies, which are arguments that sound persuasive but are built on faulty logic (Diethelm & McKee, 2009). Rather than refuting science with solid evidence, arguments often rely on fallacious reasoning to persuade. These fallacies come in many forms including
- Ad hominem attacks (Samoilenko & Cook, 2024): Instead of addressing the argument, the character or motives of climate scientists or advocates are attacked. For example, by saying “those scientists are just in it for the grant money”. This diverts attention from the evidence and can erode the credibility of experts in the eyes of the public, without ever grappling with the data or facts.
- False dichotomy (false choice) (Cook, 2020): Presenting a complex issue as a binary, either-or choice when multiple options exist. In climate debates, a common false dichotomy is that we either protect the environment or grow the economy – not both. It involves claiming that any action on climate change will inevitably wreck the economy, framing it as a choice between economic well-being and climate action. In reality, many policies can address climate change and support economic growth. The false dichotomy fallacy oversimplifies the situation, ignoring win-win solutions and nuanced outcomes.
- Appeal to nature (Ramos et al., 2025): Arguing that because something is natural, it must be good or not be a problem. In climate discussions, one might hear that the climate has changed naturally in the past, so current warming is nothing to worry about. However, this argument ignores the rate and cause of current change, which is unprecedented in human history and driven by greenhouse gas emissions. The appeal-to-nature fallacy also glosses over the fact that natural changes in the past (like ice ages) were often catastrophic for life. This fallacy gives a false sense of security by implying human influence can be discounted.
- Red herrings and straw men (Farmer & Cook, 2013): These involve diverting the argument to a side issue or misrepresenting the opponent’s position to make it easier to attack. For instance, one might respond to climate data by saying that environmentalists predicted an ice age in the 1970s – a red herring that brings up a largely irrelevant myth from decades ago to distract from today’s warming trend. A straw man example would be mischaracterizing climate activists as saying that climate change will literally end all life in 10 years, then refuting that exaggerated claim. Both tactics mislead by leading the discussion away from the actual evidence or by knocking down a distorted version of the scientific position.
All these logical fallacies serve to obscure the truth and give an appearance of debating climate science without actually engaging with the core evidence. They can be persuasive to general audiences unfamiliar with the specifics of climate data or logical argumentation. The presence of these fallacies is a strong clue that an argument is not scientifically sound. Being aware of these reasoning errors can help people spot weak or deceptive arguments more readily.
Conspiracy theories
Conspiracy theories are a staple of climate change misinformation. When faced with overwhelming scientific evidence, some who reject this consensus resort to conspiratorial explanations claiming that the evidence is faked or that scientists are colluding to deceive the public. These theories propose hidden plots to explain why mainstream climate science says the planet is warming. For example, a long-running conspiracy narrative centers on the ClimateGate incident. After hackers released emails from climate scientists, skeptics cherry-picked phrases to allege a grand scientific fraud (Bricker, 2013). Multiple independent investigations found no misconduct and reaffirmed that the evidence for climate change remained strong, but to this day the ClimateGate conspiracy theory persists as an argument that climate change is built on a lie.
Conspiracy theories thrive in this arena because they tap into distrust of authorities and institutions. They offer simple explanations like climate change being a scam for a complex reality, which can be alluring to those looking for someone to blame or a way to reconcile conflicting information. Psychologically, belief in one conspiracy often goes hand-in-hand with belief in others, and research has shown that people who endorse generic conspiratorial thinking are also more likely to reject climate science (Lewandowsky et al., 2013). In fact, Lewandowsky et al. (2013) found that endorsement of unrelated conspiracies (like the moon landing being faked) was a significant predictor of denying climate change. The conspiracist mindset can create a closed loop of thinking: evidence against the conspiracy (e.g., thousands of peer-reviewed studies or direct temperature measurements) is dismissed as further proof of how deep the conspiracy runs. This makes conspiracy theories particularly resistant to correction as any counterevidence is just seen as part of the cover-up.
The damage from conspiracy theories is substantial. They not only mislead individuals but also foster cynicism and mistrust in genuine experts and institutions. When a segment of the public is convinced that climate change is a hoax orchestrated by scientists, governments, or the United Nations for some ulterior motive, it becomes extremely difficult to build the political will for cooperative action on climate. Experts suggest that instead of directly arguing with someone deeply convinced by a conspiracy, it can be more effective to reinforce how we know what we know (for example, explaining the multiple independent lines of evidence for warming) and to emphasize the real consensus among those who study the climate (Lewandowsky et al., 2013). That, combined with improving general media literacy, can help inoculate the broader public against climate conspiracies.
Emotional appeals and fearmongering
Beyond pseudo-scientific arguments and conspiracies, climate misinformation frequently appeals to emotions, especially fear, anger, and resentment. Facts and data can be dry or complex, but emotions are powerful motivators of human behavior. One common form is fearmongering (López, 2022) about the economic or social consequences of climate policies. For instance, messages that amplify fears about job losses, higher energy prices, or government control can sway people against climate action. By stoking fear and anger portraying climate advocates as threatening one’s way of life these narratives redirect the conversation away from scientific reality and into the realm of emotional reaction.
Such emotional appeals have a strong effect in part because of a phenomenon psychologists call motivated reasoning (Bayes & Druckman, 2021). People are inclined to accept information that aligns with their existing fears or values and to reject information that conflicts with them. If accepting climate science makes someone worried about costly regulations or lifestyle changes, they might be more receptive to messages that dismiss climate problems or paint climate policy as the real danger. Another version of this dynamic is solution aversion. When a proposed solution to a problem (like stricter environmental regulations to address climate change) threatens individuals’ ideological values (such as free-market beliefs), those individuals are more likely to deny or downplay the problem itself (Campbell & Kay, 2014). In other words, if the cure is threatening, one may convince oneself that the disease is not real.
Recognizing when an argument is trying primarily to manipulate your emotions can be a clue that you are facing misinformation rather than an honest assessment. While it is natural to feel emotion about these issues, decisions guided purely by fear or anger rather than balanced information can lead away from truth and towards division.
Memes and slogans
In the age of social media, memes, catchphrases, and slogans have become powerful vehicles for climate misinformation. These are typically short, punchy pieces of content that can spread rapidly online. Memes and one-liners thrive on simplicity and emotional punch, which makes them ideal for distorting complex scientific realities into seemingly intuitive common-sense snippets that are, in fact, misleading. For example, one popular slogan used by climate skeptics is “CO₂ is plant food” (Kiyimba, 2023). This meme-sized argument implies that because plants need carbon dioxide, having more of it in the atmosphere can only be a good thing. On the surface it sounds plausible and positive, and it is easily repeated. However, this simplistic phrase ignores the broader context that an excess of CO₂ also traps heat in the atmosphere, disrupting climate systems, causing extreme weather, raising sea levels, and acidifying oceans. Another frequent slogan claims “The climate has always changed” (OpenWeather, 2025). Again, there is a kernel of truth, but the implication is misleading, suggesting that current climate change must be natural and we should not worry.
Memes and slogans like these are effective because they boil down complicated issues into shareable pieces that often appeal to emotions or common sense. On social media, an impactful meme can spread far faster than a scientific report. Climate conspiracy memes on Instagram garner hundreds of thousands of engagements and spread across platforms (Smith, 2021). These memes range from images mocking climate activists to charts taken out of context, and they frequently contain misinformation. The social nature of platforms means that once a meme starts gaining traction, it can snowball through echo chambers and reach millions, all with its simplistic message intact.
Some communicators and educators actively monitor trending climate myths and respond with clear, shareable graphics or fact-check threads to debunk them. Social media companies have also attempted to add warning labels or reduce the spread of falsehoods about climate change. The best defense as a social media consumer is a healthy skepticism of too-tidy slogans. If a meme’s message seems over-simplified or too perfect, it is a good cue to dig deeper or look for verification from reliable sources.
Conclusion
Misinformation about climate change employs a range of clever and persuasive tactics including cherry-picking data, elevating fake experts, spouting logical fallacies, spinning conspiracy narratives, provoking emotions, and propagating memes and slogans. These tactics feed on our cognitive biases and emotions, making false or misleading ideas seem plausible. However, recognizing these tactics is an empowering first step in resisting them. Critical thinkers can learn to spot the tell-tale signs: the lone graph that contradicts dozens of others (cherry-pick), the commentator with impressive titles but no relevant research (fake expert), the argument that shifts away from facts to personal attacks or scary claims (fallacies and fear). By calling out the techniques being used, we take away some of their power. In fact, communication researchers have found that educating people about common misinformation tactics can inoculate them, much like a vaccine, reducing the influence of false claims.
In an era of information overload, none of us will be perfectly immune to misinformation. But we can strive to be informed consumers of climate information by checking sources, seeking out expert consensus, and being wary of arguments that push our emotional buttons at the expense of facts. Climate change is too important to get lost in misinformation. By understanding the strategies used to mislead, we can focus on what the evidence really tells us and make decisions based on reality, not rhetoric.
*Dmitry Erokhin (PhD) is a research scholar in the Cooperation and Transformative Governance Research Group of the IIASA Advancing Systems Analysis Program. His research interests include economic cooperation, digitalization, climate change adaptation, and disaster risk management.
Nadejda Komendantova (PhD) leads the Cooperation and Transformative Governance Research Group at IIASA and is a senior research scholar in the Advancing Systems Analysis Program. Her research interests include participatory, multi-risk, compromise, negotiation, and cooperation-oriented governance for complex policy challenges such as energy security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, technological innovations, health policy, and digitalization. The focus of her research is on governance and decision-making processes under uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity, and volatility, while incorporating systems thinking into strategic policy planning and addressing social dilemmas and wicked policy issues.
References
Bayes, R., & Druckman, J. N. (2021). Motivated reasoning and climate change. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 27-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.02.009
Bricker, B. J. (2013). Climategate: A case study in the intersection of facticity and conspiracy theory. Communication Studies, 64(2), 218-239. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2012.749294
Campbell, T. H., & Kay, A. C. (2014). Solution aversion: On the relation between ideology and motivated disbelief. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(5), 809. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037963
Cook, J. (2020). Deconstructing climate science denial. Research Handbook on Communicating Climate Change, 62-78. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789900408.00014
Cook, J., Lewandowsky, S., & Ecker, U. K. (2017). Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: Exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence. PloS one, 12(5), e0175799. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175799
Diethelm, P., & McKee, M. (2009). Denialism: What is it and how should scientists respond?. The European Journal of Public Health, 19(1), 2-4. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckn139
Farmer, G. T., & Cook, J. (2013). Understanding climate change denial. In G. T. Farmer & J. Cook (Eds.), Climate change science: A modern synthesis. Volume 1—The physical climate (pp. 445–466). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5757-8_23
Kiyimba, R. (2023). Fact Check: CO₂, is it a pollutant or a plant food? Debunk Media Initiative. https://debunkinitiative.org/fact-check-co2-is-it-a-pollutant-or-a-plant-food/
Lewandowsky, S., Ballard, T., Oberauer, K., & Benestad, R. (2016). A blind expert test of contrarian claims about climate data. Global Environmental Change, 39, 91-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.04.013
Lewandowsky, S., Gignac, G. E., & Oberauer, K. (2013). The role of conspiracist ideation and worldviews in predicting rejection of science. PloS one, 8(10), e75637. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075637
Lewandowsky, S., Gignac, G. E., & Vaughan, S. (2013). The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nature Climate Change, 3(4), 399-404. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1720
López, A. (2022). Gaslighting: Fake climate news and big Carbon’s network of Denial. In The Palgrave Handbook of Media Misinformation (pp. 159-177). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-11976-7_11
OpenWeather. (2025). Debunking climate myths: Separating facts from fiction. OpenWeather Blog. https://openweather.co.uk/blog/post/debunking-climate-myths-separating-facts-fiction/
Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2010). Defeating the merchants of doubt. Nature, 465(7299), 686-687. https://doi.org/10.1038/465686a
Ramos, R., Vaz, P., & Rodrigues, M. J. (2025). Climate denialism on social media: Qualitative analysis of comments on Portuguese newspaper Facebook pages. Psychology International, 7(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/psycholint7010006
Samoilenko, S. A., & Cook, J. (2024). Developing an Ad Hominem typology for classifying climate misinformation. Climate Policy, 24(1), 138-151. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2023.2245792
Schmid-Petri, H., & Bürger, M. (2022). The effect of misinformation and inoculation: Replication of an experiment on the effect of false experts in the context of climate change communication. Public Understanding of Science, 31(2), 152-167. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625211024550
Smith, R. (2021). Climate change conspiracy memes on Instagram extend across the web. First Draft News. https://firstdraftnews.org/articles/climate-change-misinformation-conspiracy-memes/
Strauss, V. (2023). Cherry-picking climate data, limiting social media and more news literacy lessons. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/02/09/climate-data-socialmedia-news-literacy/#:~:text=Climate%20deniers%20share%20cherry,falsely%20claim%20planet%20is%20cooling
Thapa Magar, N., Thapa, B. J., & Li, Y. (2024). Climate change misinformation in the United States: An actor–network analysis. Journalism and Media, 5(2), 595-613. https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia5020040
United Nations Development Programme. (2025). What are climate misinformation and disinformation and how can we tackle them? Climate Promise. https://climatepromise.undp.org/news-and-stories/what-are-climate-misinformation-and-disinformation-and-how-can-we-tackle-them#:~:text=,due%20to%20the%20formation%20of