Climate change communication and misinformation

Scientific agreement on anthropogenic climate change is near-universal (97%+), yet public perception of this consensus is far lower and deeply polarized. Misinformation campaigns have undermined public understanding of the consensus and exacerbated political polarization. Research focuses on effective communication strategies (consensus messaging, inoculation), the psychology of climate denial and belief change, and the role of "Merchants of Doubt" in orchestrating disinformation.

Key papers

• Treen, Williams & O'Neill (2020) — Online misinformation about climate change — comprehensive overview of climate change misinformation; synthesizes definitions (distinguishing misinformation from disinformation), identifies actors spreading denial (scientists, governments, industry, media, think tanks), explains spread mechanisms (social media homophily, echo chambers, algorithmic bias), and reviews evidence-based countermeasures (inoculation, correction, platform mechanisms).
• Farrell (2016) — Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change — computational analysis of 40,785 texts from 164 climate contrarian organizations (1993–2013); demonstrates that corporate funding from ExxonMobil and Koch foundations directly influences thematic content of polarizing discourse, with funded organizations emphasizing energy-production-friendly narratives and scientific skepticism.
• van der Linden et al. (2017) — Inoculating the Public against Misinformation about Climate Change — demonstrates that scientific consensus messaging increases perceived agreement by ~20 percentage points, but is nullified by misinformation; pre-emptive inoculation (warnings and refutations) preserves two-thirds of the consensus effect across political spectrum