This session, organised by EU DisinfoLab, and led by Jodie Molyneux, Resolver’s Mis/Disinformation Subject Matter Expert, explored how false climate narratives spread, their real-world consequences and their connections to broader disinformation networks..
This Q&A document is based on insights from the Resolver x EU DisinfoLab webinar on climate change mis-and disinformation, held on 20 February 2025. To watch the whole webinar, please click here.
Below are key takeaways from the discussion, addressing the effectiveness of fact-checking, the role of social media platforms, and the intersection of climate mis-and disinformation with other harmful narratives.
Q: How effective are current fact-checking and moderation efforts in combating mis-and disinformation on major social media platforms?
A: Currently, these efforts are not very effective. Many platforms only consider outright false claims as violations, rather than addressing the broader issue of undermining confidence in scientific consensus. For example, while outright denial of climate change is less common, mis-and disinformation now focuses on creating doubt about scientific findings and climate action policies. Given that outright denial is becoming less tenable, moderation policies need updating—such as those outlined in the Code of Practice on Disinformation under the DSA. However, platforms must also balance moderation with freedom of expression, making this a complex issue.
Q: How will the absence of external fact-checking on Meta’s platforms impact the spread of climate mis-and disinformation?
A: This change is likely to create turbulence in the trust and safety sector. Reduced moderation means environmental information is less likely to be rigorous and data driven at a time when climate mis-and disinformation is already not a priority in many policies and regulations. The first challenge is getting climate mis-and disinformation recognized as a serious issue. Without external fact-checking, mis-and disinformation may spread more freely, making it even harder to address.
Q: What are the most popular types of climate mis-and disinformation, and where can one find relevant datasets?
A: One of the most common narratives is that climate researchers are corrupt and financially motivated to exaggerate climate risks. There is also a prevalent belief that governments use climate policies for financial or political gain.
Q: You mentioned links between climate mis-and disinformation and anti-migrant or antisemitic narratives. Are these evolving into mis-and disinformation, or do they remain purely as hate speech?
A: The overlap is significant. Many conspiracy theories link climate policies to antisemitic tropes, such as the idea that Jewish people control global finance. Similarly, migrants are sometimes falsely blamed for resource scarcity linked to climate change. These narratives often serve dual purposes: spreading both disinformation and hate. Conspiracy theories adapt to fit different groups into their overarching framework of mistrust and control.
Q: Does climate mis-and disinformation spread differently in non-Western countries compared to the US?
A: Climate mis-and disinformation exists worldwide, though cultural factors influence its spread. In countries where trust in government and institutions remains strong, mis-and disinformation may be less prevalent. However, in nations like the U.S. and the U.K., where institutional trust is eroding, mis-and disinformation narratives gain traction more easily. Additionally, mis-and disinformation from the US is often copied and adapted by other regions, particularly in Western Europe.
Q: Are there specific groups funding or benefiting from online climate mis-and disinformation campaigns?
A: In some cases. Some organizations have historically received funding from fossil fuel companies. Tracing funding sources behind climate denial groups can reveal connections to organizations with a vested interest in influencing the narrative around climate change. However, much climate mis-and disinformation is likely organic and we should resist the temptation of looking for one controlling hand or a mis-and disinformation conspiracy.
Q: How is generative AI affecting climate mis-and disinformation?
A: While AI-generated mis-and disinformation in climate discussions is not yet widespread, we have seen examples, such as AI-generated wildfire images that misrepresented reality. However, AI-generated mis-and disinformation is expected to become more sophisticated over time. Currently, the quality of AI-generated mis-and disinformation may not be convincing enough to be highly impactful, but this is likely to change.
Q: What should be the main priorities for media literacy education to counter climate mis-and disinformation?
A: Media literacy is crucial, and it’s encouraging that legislation is starting to emphasize it. Many people do not engage with fact-checking banners on social media. Implementing interventions—such as requiring users to confirm their intent before posting potentially misleading content—could encourage critical thinking. Additionally, media literacy efforts should extend to smaller, high-risk platforms, not just mainstream social media.
Q: How specific should platform interventions be to climate mis-and disinformation?
A: The DSA mentions environmental mis-and disinformation but does not provide in-depth guidelines. Climate mis-and disinformation often overlaps with other disinformation topics, making it difficult to create targeted interventions. Intent also plays a significant role—moderation efforts must differentiate between deliberate disinformation and users who are simply misinformed. Broad disinformation policies that account for these nuances may be more effective than climate-specific regulations.
Q: How can mis-and disinformation be prioritized in climate policy discussions?
A: Policymakers need to recognize the real-world consequences of climate mis-and disinformation. One approach is emphasizing its role in fueling violence, health mis-and disinformation, and policy stagnation. Demonstrating tangible harms—such as mis-and disinformation leading to violent incidents, witnessed in the UK with the 2024 Southport riots—may help policymakers see the urgency of addressing the issue.
Q: How can mayors and city governments combat climate mis-and disinformation, and how can European mayors use the DSA to help?
A: Media literacy initiatives at the local level can be powerful. Mayors can support public awareness campaigns and educational programs. As for the DSA, compliance requires effort, but ensuring transparency and adherence to disinformation regulations will help create a more informed public discourse.
Q: Does flagging disinformation work, or should other approaches be considered?
A: Currently, disinformation is flagged based on content. A more effective approach might involve analyzing user behavior. Instead of simply removing false content, platforms could implement friction-based interventions—such as prompting users to review the accuracy of their posts before sharing. This could help change behavior over time rather than just removing content. At Resolver we analyse behavior alongside content, and, most importantly, how information spreads within a sphere of influence/community, to assess the intent, impact and trajectory of harmful narratives.
Q: What is the scale of climate mis-and disinformation online?
A: Precise measurement is challenging, as many investigations rely on open-source intelligence (OSINT), and access to large-scale data can be limited due to various constraints. These limitations make it harder to track mis-and disinformation comprehensively across different platforms. However, mis-and disinformation is likely spread by millions of accounts. In many cases, a small number of influential figures or organizations disseminate mis-and disinformation, which is then amplified by a broader network of smaller accounts.
Q: Why do people believe conspiracy theories over real documented conspiracies?
A: Conspiracy theories often provide simpler, more emotionally satisfying explanations for complex issues. Climate change is a daunting challenge requiring global cooperation, while conspiracy theories offer a convenient alternative: believing that a small group of elites is manipulating the system for instance. This perspective can be psychologically comforting, even if it is factually incorrect and is not specific to climate change mis-and disinformation but can be seen in the enduring historic appeal of conspiracy theories
Q: How does disinformation on mainstream platforms compare to fringe social media, and what is the role of bots?
A: Fringe platforms attract users who feel censored by mainstream sites, often leading to more extreme views being aired and increased mis-and disinformation. These platforms are not always large enough to fall under strict regulations, making them breeding grounds for harmful narratives. Bots play a larger role in foreign information operations, though climate mis-and disinformation currently appears to be more of a domestic issue. However, as climate policies become stricter, we may see increased foreign interference.
Q: How does Resolver help respond to the changing disinformation landscape around climate discussions?
A: Resolver operates at the intersection of free expression and policy enforcement. Our goal is to identify emerging risks before they escalate, helping clients develop proactive policies. By monitoring trends and conducting risk assessments, we assist platforms in balancing regulation with user freedoms while ensuring that mis-and disinformation does not go unchecked. Resolver has the advantage of seeing how mis-and disinformation can merge with other risk areas such as hate speech and even incitement to violence – a significant part of our contribution is highlighting the interplay between these different risk areas so platforms can take a holistic view of the risk to their users and communities.
Q – Mis-and disinformation generally remains in the shadow of tech solutions. How can we make the fight against mis-and disinformation a priority in climate policies?
A – It starts with the need to embed climate change mis-and disinformation into broader climate action frameworks rather than treating it as a secondary, or even separate, issue. Driving initiatives at the local, national and then international levels that are focussed on digital literacy, critical thinking skills, lays the foundations of awareness of mis-and disinformation and provides the necessary knowledge to counter it. This awareness breeds further research and monitoring, which fuels further solutions and regulation. Climate change mis-and disinformation is an evergreen issue, and not something that can be solved quickly. However, taking the right steps now puts us collectively on a better course of action to improve mis-and disinformation in the future.
Q – What are the immediate impacts of climate change mis-and disinformation on users? Are these also evolving into disinformation?
A – The immediate impacts of climate change mis-and disinformation are largely emotive, and can include confusion and apathy – users find themselves disengaging from climate-friendly policies or behaviors. At a wider level, climate change mis-and disinformation breeds distrust and polarization, particularly online where we see echo chambers form around a commonly held belief. It is these echo chambers, and continued exposure to harmful, or inaccurate theories, that hold the potential of driving users towards more egregious narratives/disinformation.
Addressing climate mis-and disinformation requires ongoing collaboration between platforms, policymakers, and researchers. As new narratives emerge and evolve, staying informed is critical to countering disinformation effectively.
If you have further questions or would like to hear more about our Trust & Safety Intelligence, contact Resolver for expert insights and support.
Interested in finding out how Resolver’s Trust & Safety Intelligence can help safeguard your platform. Find out more here.