The modern discourse surrounding climate change has become increasingly polluted by a deluge of disinformation and misinformation, bleeding from the darkest corners of the internet directly into the high-stakes meeting rooms where global policy is forged. As Philip Newell, communications co-chair for Climate Action Against Disinformation, recently articulated, this isn’t merely an accidental byproduct of our digital age. Instead, it is a calculated, strategic effort to derail the momentum of environmental reform. By muddying the waters, those invested in the status quo ensure that the urgent necessity of climate action remains trapped in a perpetual, artificial cycle of debate, preventing the meaningful progress that a overwhelming scientific consensus demands.
At the heart of this strategy is a simple but devastating trick: the manufacturing of doubt. While misinformation may be born from humble ignorance, disinformation is a weaponized tool wielded with intent, often fueled by profound financial motivations. By artificially balancing the scales, these actors work to convince the public that climate change is a topic of intense, 50-50 disagreement, rather than a settled scientific reality supported by an overwhelming 97% of the global scientific community. This “both-sides” narrative serves to paralyze political will; after all, if a problem is still considered a point of contention, decision-makers can easily justify their inaction, framing their hesitation as a balanced approach to a complex problem.
The tragedy of this campaign is that the public is not nearly as divided as these “disinfluencers” want us to believe. Data suggests that approximately 89% of the world’s population is already clamoring for robust climate leadership, and here in Canada, the preference is clear: seven out of ten citizens would rather see the nation transition into a renewable energy superpower than continue to cling to the volatile path of oil and gas. Yet, despite this broad societal consensus, policy remains stagnant. Newell points out the uncomfortable irony: when public opinion is clearly in favor of change, but policy consistently fails to reflect it, we are witnessing the direct, corrosive power of polarization at work.
This systematic spread of false claims has climbed far beyond fringe blogs, finding a comfortable home in mainstream conservative media, where it is often recycled into actionable political rhetoric. We saw the tangible consequences of this migration when the United States withdrew from the Paris Agreement—a decision predicated on claims that had already been thoroughly debunked. Even once these falsehoods were exposed, the damage was already done. The goal was never to win a long-term debate based on facts, but rather to sow seeds of deep, personal distrust in scientists that would linger long after the initial lies were forgotten, effectively insulating the status quo from accountability.
However, recognizing these tactics for what they truly are is the first step toward dismantling their power. Newell argues that we must stop playing by the rules of those who thrive on conflict. Engaging in “proper” debate—often fueled by polite academic discourse—is exactly what climate deniers want, as it reinforces the illusion that there are two valid, competing viewpoints. Instead, we should pivot toward ridicule. By exposing the absurdity of these arguments and refusing to validate them as legitimate, we strip them of their gravity. When we treat disinformation as a serious intellectual counterpoint rather than a tactical deception, we give it far more oxygen than it deserves.
Ultimately, the best way to handle this modern-day monster is to stop treating it as an invincible behemoth. Newell’s closing sentiment is a grounding reminder: these figures and their narratives are not as potent as they appear once the curtains are pulled back. Climate disinformation is a manufactured narrative, not a natural phenomenon, and like any monster, it loses its power the moment we stop being afraid of it. By choosing to hold these actors accountable, rejecting the false frame of “debate,” and leaning into the overwhelming reality of the consensus, we can finally stop the stalling and start doing the real, necessary work of protecting our planet.