Search Climate Insights Directory

The document details a leaked 1998 memo from the American Petroleum Institute (API) outlining a 'Global Climate Science Communications Plan' designed to make scientific uncertainties in climate change part of 'conventional wisdom'. It contrasts this industry strategy with the 1995 IPCC findings that indicated a 'discernible human influence on global climate'. The text notes that API, representing companies like ExxonMobil and Shell, has continued to challenge the science of climate change, including a 2011 legal challenge against the EPA's endangerment finding.

The document exposes a 1998 leaked memo from the American Petroleum Institute (API) detailing a strategic plan to promote scientific uncertainty regarding climate change. It contrasts API's claims of uncertainty with findings from the IPCC's 1990 and 1995 reports, which established human influence on global warming. The text further notes API's ongoing efforts to block U.S. federal regulations, including a 2011 lawsuit challenging the EPA's endangerment finding.

The document contrasts ConocoPhillips' claims of uncertainty regarding climate change's effects on public health with findings from the IPCC and the U.S. National Climate Assessment. It further highlights contradictions between the company's public acknowledgments of human-induced warming and its support for climate-denying trade groups and opposition to U.S. climate legislation.

The document contrasts ExxonMobil's 2005 claims that the cause of global warming remained 'in dispute' with scientific reports from 2000 and 2001 that attributed warming to human activities. It further notes ExxonMobil's 2009 opposition to the EPA's endangerment finding, citing uncertainty and potential economic harm.

The Union of Concerned Scientists challenges Peabody Energy's 2014 claim that the benefits of CO2 outweigh its costs by 'orders of magnitude,' asserting instead that the social costs of carbon pollution—such as drought, heat waves, and coastal flooding—far exceed any benefits. The document details Peabody Energy's repeated efforts to challenge the EPA's endangerment finding and the IPCC's findings, as well as its affiliations with industry groups like ALEC and ACCCE to promote climate disinformation.

The document asserts that 90 entities, including 50 investor-owned companies, are responsible for 63% of industrial CO2 and methane emissions since 1751. It argues that these companies ignored scientific warnings as early as 1988 and actively worked to discredit climate science. The author calls for these producers to stop disinformation, disclose financial risks, support the 2°C warming target, and pay for climate-related damages.

The workshop explored how the tobacco industry's history of disinformation and the subsequent legal breakthroughs—specifically the discovery of internal documents—could inform strategies to hold fossil fuel companies accountable. Participants discussed various legal avenues, including public nuisance and RICO lawsuits, the scientific challenges of attributing specific climate damages to individual producers, and the need for a compelling public narrative to move beyond scientific evidence and mobilize public action.

A snapshot analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that representations of climate science on Fox News Channel and in the Wall Street Journal's opinion section were overwhelmingly misleading, despite News Corporation's public commitments to environmental sustainability.

The Union of Concerned Scientists identifies several organizations that promote climate skepticism and disinformation, arguing they are part of a "disinformation playbook" funded by the fossil fuel industry to delay climate action. The report details the activities of groups such as the American Enterprise Institute, Heartland Institute, and the Heritage Foundation, documenting millions of dollars in contributions from ExxonMobil and Koch-funded foundations. These organizations are accused of undermining scientific consensus, attacking climate scientists, and pushing model legislation to obstruct emissions reductions.

The Union of Concerned Scientists reports that ExxonMobil funded a network of ideological organizations to deceive the public about global warming. By spending approximately $16 million between 1998 and 2005, the company promoted a small group of contrarian scientists and used 'information laundering' through front groups to create a false impression of scientific debate. The report details how these tactics mirror the tobacco industry's historical efforts to hide the links between smoking and disease. Furthermore, the document outlines ExxonMobil's influence on the George W. Bush administration, including the appointment of climate negotiators and the censorship of government scientific reports.

The briefing identifies a structured pattern of wildfire-related disinformation on social media, where 'core' narratives like arson deflection and government mismanagement serve as gateways to more extreme conspiracy theories and climate denial. It highlights how these narratives have spread across different regions, including Chile, Spain, Greece, Canada, and Hawaii, often leveraging the 'attention economy' of Big Tech platforms to undermine the link between climate change and increasing wildfire intensity.

The document argues that current government and platform policies have failed to curb climate disinformation, which is used by polluting industries and petrostates to delay the transition to a green economy. It proposes a framework based on safety, privacy, transparency, and accountability, calling for binding legislation rather than voluntary commitments. Key asks include requiring safety proofs for digital products, enacting strong privacy laws, mandating transparency from AI and social media companies, and regulating the advertising ecosystem similarly to financial markets. Additionally, it advocates for the protection of pluralistic media, funding for climate journalism, and industry adoption of UN-aligned definitions of climate disinformation.

The briefing reports a significant increase in Google Ads by oil companies globally and specifically in Brazil leading up to COP30 in November 2025. It highlights that while global oil ads spiked by 218% in October 2025, ads targeting Brazil increased by 2,900%, with Petrobras accounting for nearly 70% of these. The document argues that these campaigns are part of a broader disinformation strategy to secure a 'social licence' for continued fossil fuel investment, contrasting public 'green' narratives with actual investment patterns and environmental records. It recommends increased regulatory intervention, including a potential ban on fossil fuel advertising similar to tobacco regulations.

The report by Climate Action Against Disinformation (CAAD) critiques the Edelman Trust Barometer, alleging that the PR firm uses 'organized lying' and opaque data to promote the idea that business leaders are the most trusted figures in society. It highlights contradictions between Edelman's findings and other research from the UN and University of Oxford, particularly regarding public trust in corporate climate efforts. Furthermore, the document exposes a conflict of interest, noting that while Edelman claims climate change is a major crisis, it maintains extensive contracts with major fossil fuel companies including Shell, Chevron, and TotalEnergies.

The report identifies a significant increase in the volume of tweets featuring climate change denial terms starting in July 2022, though this growth was not matched by an increase in user engagement.

The study analyzed 113 top US climate disinformation sites, finding that nearly 80% displayed ads from major networks. Google's display networks were the most dominant, appearing on nearly half of the sites and accounting for 97.7% of projected weekly visits. The report argues that these platforms profit from climate disinformation despite having policies against misleading content, with Google potentially earning $7.6 million in revenue from these sites based on industry median cost-per-click estimates.

The document argues that the European Commission's designation of 19 platforms under the Digital Services Act (DSA) provides a critical opportunity to address climate disinformation, which CAAD claims derails climate action and threatens democratic processes. CAAD calls for these platforms to go beyond minimum compliance and apply safety-by-design principles globally, specifically targeting the monetisation of disinformation and the influence of the fossil fuel industry.

The report details the persistence of climate disinformation across major platforms like X, Meta, TikTok, and YouTube. It identifies key narratives used to discredit renewable energy, the use of extreme weather events (wildfires and hurricanes) to fuel conspiracy theories and incite violence, and the extensive use of Meta's advertising tools by fossil fuel entities for greenwashing and lobbying. The authors argue that platform architectures reward engagement over truth, necessitating systemic policy changes to disrupt the economy of disinformation.

The report argues that 'Big Carbon' (fossil fuel and agribusiness) and 'Big Tech' collaborate to create a 'false social reality' that makes the vast majority of people who support climate action feel like a minority. It details a history of obstruction, from the 1959 warnings to oil executives to the 2009 'Climategate' hack-and-leak attack, and analyzes modern digital tactics used to sabotage UN COPs. The document highlights specific disinformation trends in Brazil leading up to COP30, including the use of generative AI to create fake flood imagery. It concludes by proposing structural solutions such as the EU's Digital Services Act, greenwashing laws in France, and the Global Initiative on Information Integrity on Climate Change (GIIICC).

The report details the strategies used by carbon-intensive industries and big tech to obstruct climate policies through disinformation, polarising narratives, and digital 'distortion mirrors'. It highlights specific cases in Brazil, the historical impact of the 'Climagate' scandal, and the systemic role of social media platforms in creating a 'false social reality' that makes the majority of people who support climate action feel like a minority. The document advocates for structural solutions, such as the Global Initiative for Climate Change Information Integrity (GIIICC) and legislative measures like the EU's Digital Services Act, to protect the information environment ahead of COP30.