Information Integrity about Climate Science: A Systematic Review

The report identifies a crisis of information integrity about climate science, characterized by a shift from outright denial to more nuanced skepticism and 'response skepticism' regarding climate solutions. It documents how powerful economic interests, particularly the fossil fuel industry, and political actors use strategies like greenwashing, delay, and obstruction to undermine scientific consensus. The review highlights the role of social media algorithms, bots, and 'source media' (such as corporate reports) in amplifying misleading narratives. It concludes that while individual-level interventions like inoculation and education are valuable, systemic governance through public regulation, standardized corporate reporting, and litigation is essential to restore information integrity.

• The report defines information integrity through four criteria: accuracy (alignment with climate science), consistency (stability of information across time and place), reliability (explication of origins and relevance), and transparency (the ability for citizens to trace information trajectories).
• Fossil fuel companies, including TotalEnergies, ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Shell, and ConocoPhillips, have historically used a 'dual deception' strategy: denying the reality of climate change while simultaneously using greenwashing to appear environmentally sustainable.
• There is a documented shift in misleading communication from outright denial of climate change toward 'skepticism,' specifically 'response skepticism' which questions the feasibility and effectiveness of proposed policies and solutions.
• The 'climate change countermovement' is an organized 'denial machine' involving coordinated efforts across the fossil fuel, plastic, and agrichemical industries to obstruct climate action.
• Social media platforms facilitate the spread of misinformation through algorithms and the use of bots; one study found that nearly 25% of tweets regarding the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement originated from bot accounts that promoted denialist discourses.
• Source media, such as corporate sustainability reports and government documents, are critical but underestimated channels for misleading information, often used for greenwashing or to justify delays in climate action outside of public scrutiny.
• Youth and students are identified as particularly vulnerable to misleading climate information due to their high reliance on social media and limited information literacy, sometimes facing 'petro-pedagogy' where industry narratives penetrate education systems.
• Inoculation—preemptively exposing people to the techniques used to mislead—is found to be an effective strategy for building resilience against misinformation, though its efficacy can be limited by strong pre-existing ideological worldviews.
• The report identifies a severe 'elephant in the room' regarding research gaps: there is a critical dearth of studies on information integrity about climate science in the Global South and a lack of globally comparative perspectives.
• Effective solutions to the crisis of information integrity require a combination of public regulation, mandatory standardized corporate reporting (such as the EU taxonomy), and the use of litigation against repeat offenders of greenwashing.

APA

Elbeyi, E., Jensen, K. B., Aronczyk, M., Asuka, J., Ceylan, G., Cook, J., Erdelyi, G., Ford, H., Milani, C., Mustafaraj, E., Ogenga, F., Yadin, S., Howard, P., & Valenzuela, S. (2025). Information Integrity about Climate Science: A Systematic Review. International Panel on the Information Environment. https://www.ipie.info/research/sr2025-1

Chicago

Elbeyi, Ece, Klaus Bruhn Jensen, Melissa Aronczyk, Jusen Asuka, Gizem Ceylan, John Cook, Gabor Erdelyi, et al. Information Integrity about Climate Science: A Systematic Review. International Panel on the Information Environment, 2025. https://www.ipie.info/research/sr2025-1.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Elbeyi |first1=Ece |last2=Jensen |first2=Klaus Bruhn |last3=Aronczyk |first3=Melissa |last4=Asuka |first4=Jusen |last5=Ceylan |first5=Gizem |last6=Cook |first6=John |last7=Erdelyi |first7=Gabor |last8=Ford |first8=Heather |last9=Milani |first9=Carlos |display-authors=etal |title=Information Integrity about Climate Science: A Systematic Review |publisher=International Panel on the Information Environment |date=2025 |url=https://www.ipie.info/research/sr2025-1 |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{elbeyi2025information, author = {Elbeyi, Ece and Jensen, Klaus Bruhn and Aronczyk, Melissa and Asuka, Jusen and Ceylan, Gizem and Cook, John and Erdelyi, Gabor and Ford, Heather and Milani, Carlos and Mustafaraj, Eni and Ogenga, Fredrick and Yadin, Sharon and Howard, Philip and Valenzuela, Sebastián}, title = {{Information Integrity about Climate Science: A Systematic Review}}, institution = {International Panel on the Information Environment}, year = {2025}, url = {https://www.ipie.info/research/sr2025-1}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }