Receipts, Not Rhetoric: How to Beat Climate Fake News
- Natalie Snyder
- 8 minutes ago
- 7 min read
By Natalie Snyder
“Trust us, we’re the experts.”
On July 23rd, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a report titled “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate.” The report contends that the economic risks associated with human-driven climate change may be overstated and suggests that stringent mitigation efforts might, in some cases, cause more harm than good. On the same day, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a formal proposal to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding under Clean Air Act Section 202(a), which, up until now, has been the legal backbone for regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Clean Air Act, claiming that GHGs like carbon dioxide endanger public health and welfare. This proposal aims to terminate federal regulation of greenhouse emissions from vehicles and eliminate obligations for manufacturers regarding the measurement, control, and reporting of GHG emissions. The EPA cited the DOE report to justify its proposed rollback (science.feedback.org). To many readers, official logos and government letterhead signal authority and reliability. Yet authority cannot substitute for transparent methods, comprehensive evidence, and rigorous review. This essay offers a reader’s toolkit for assessing climate claims, especially when government documents themselves become part of the controversy.
False Information Spreads Like Wildfire
The internet is a powerful instrument for sharing information and is crucial when staying informed on climate news. However, modern media platforms employ sophisticated algorithms to optimize for engagement, not verification; their ranking systems amplify content that provokes emotion and confirms what users already believe. In an environment saturated with headlines, charts, clips, and hot takes, information fatigue sets in, diminishing individuals’ motivation to verify each claim they encounter. When a claim aligns with preconceived beliefs, it faces fewer credibility checks and travels farther, faster, even if it is untrue. As a result, the media has become saturated with false information.
Irrespective of individual beliefs, it is crucial to disseminate only accurate and verifiable information. Maintaining an informed understanding of topics of personal or societal importance is critical for effectively advocating for evidence-based perspectives. Within the context of climate change, this necessitates the ability to discern when false information is being spread to advance particular agendas rather than to convey factual evidence. This leads to a critical question: how can we, as readers, confidently separate fact from fabrication? In the following section, we will explore the most common types of false information and the tools to spot them before they take root.
Main Types of False Information
False information can broadly be defined in two main categories: misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation is false, inaccurate, or incomplete information that is generally reported with no ill intent. It can often arise when information is not verified or researched before being shared. This includes information, such as social media posts or news articles, shared by people who do not realize that it is false. Generally, misinformation can be identified by inconsistencies or discrepancies within the information itself or when compared to other sources, such as misunderstandings or misinterpretations of data. Common forms include: misreadings of studies and preprints; screenshots of figures stripped of captions and caveats; “greenwashing” ads with vague climate claims; and recycled “expert” quotes that are unsourced or misattributed. Political speeches and campaign ads can also unintentionally misstate science when they compress complex evidence into a sound bite.
Disinformation, on the other hand, is false information distributed with the intention of misleading, harming, or manipulating the public or a group of people to gain influence. Operationally, disinformation comprises coordinated efforts that leverage false statements, selective truths, and normative frames to manipulate and aggravate conflicts rooted in group identity. Signals for disinformation include sensational framing, exaggerated headlines, and narratives tied to political or financial interests. They are driven through government-branded reports or proposals that selectively present evidence to downplay risk under a veneer of legitimacy; ads, op-eds, and influencer content that cherry-pick data; pseudo-documentaries citing fringe sources; edited or mislabelled charts; and templated talking points repeated at hearings and town halls as if they were evidence.
Verify, Contextualize, Act
Misinformation often spreads rapidly precisely because it is produced and shared without intent to deceive, and thus encounters less investigation. To mitigate its spread, adopt deliberative sharing practices: maintain a verification interval, consult primary sources and reputable references, assess the author and their background, and, for visuals, use reverse-image verification. If the claim proves to be verifiable, include the supporting citation; when it does not, refrain from sharing and, if previously shared, issue a transparent correction. To promote a norm of information credibility, request sources from others and steer group communications toward evidence-based materials.
When you encounter disinformation such as contradictory climate claims, start by checking the author’s credentials, funding, and track record; then read laterally by opening a few independent sources to see how experts characterize the claim. Trace any statistics, quotes, or graphics back to primary sources, watching for cherry-picked timeframes or geographies and for articles being presented as peer-reviewed science. Finally, verify visuals with reverse-image searches to confirm their origin and authenticity before sharing.
Type | Is it true? | Was the intent harmful? | Example Signal | First Response |
Misinformation | No | Unintentional | Inconsistencies or discrepancies within the information itself or when compared to other sources. | Offer corrective context; share source; avoid shaming |
Disinformation | No | Intentional deception | Sensational or emotionally charged content. Exaggerated headlines or emotional language. Obstructed political or financial agendas. Questionable author credibility and background. | Demand evidence; compare with consensus; document patterns, practice lateral reading, utilize reverse image search tools to determine the origin and authenticity of images or figures. |
Applying the Lens to the DOE/EPA Episode
The misinformation and disinformation frameworks are useful for evaluating the DOE’s “Critical Review” and the EPA’s rescission proposal. The DOE’s “Critical Review” presents itself as a corrective to what it portrays as an exaggerated risk narrative. By contrast, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2023 AR6 Synthesis Report, prepared and reviewed by hundreds of experts, found that human-generated greenhouse gases have unequivocally warmed the planet, a claim that the DOE report alleges is “overstated” (Climate Working Group, 2025, p.15). Unlike consensus assessments such as the IPCC’s, the 2025 DOE report, introduced by Energy Secretary Chris Wright who has longstanding ties to the fossil-fuel industry, lists only five authors identified in its foreword (Climate Working Group, 2025, p. viii) for their contrarian stances, relies on selective citation that departs from key consensus findings, cherry-picked data to fit their narrative, and provides no documentation of an external peer-review process. The EPA’s bid to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding is only a proposal, but it employs its plan solely on the DOE’s report. Framing it as such, or claiming “scientists agree risks are overstated” by relying solely on the DOE’s false report while ignoring critically acclaimed IPCC findings, constitutes disinformation as part of a coordinated effort with the DOE.
Collectively, the selective interpretation of literature and climate models to align with policy aims, performative contrarianism toward consensus science, inadequate evidence, and the absence of independent peer review in the DOE’s report constitute serious red flags consistent with disinformation tactics and compromised scientific integrity. These patterns warrant transparent, third-party evaluation of the analysis and its policy use, including full disclosure of methods, datasets, and potential conflicts of interest.
But There’s Hope
Climate advocacy is, at its core, a commitment to epistemic integrity. It requires neither minimizing the gravity of current risks nor exaggerating future conditions. Recent news and publications involving the DEP and EPA illustrate how cherry-picking evidence can distort conclusions when broader bodies of research are disregarded. Departure from consensus, by itself, does not confer epistemic authority; such claims must be warranted by transparent methods and comprehensive data. Practically, effective advocacy entails disciplined information practices: cultivate media literacy, recognize cognitive and institutional biases, verify sources and context prior to dissemination, and correct inaccuracies when they arise.
Part of Seaside Sustainability’s mission is to advance education, policy engagement, and collaboration with legislative bodies at the federal, state, and municipal levels to support evidence-based proposals and reform outdated rules as climate risks intensify. Individual behavior change is necessary but insufficient; social isolation and anxiety, often amplified by algorithmic feeds, erode collective efficacy and make communities more susceptible to misleading claims. Engagement through local outreach, community science, and civic deliberation not only restores agency and builds social capital; it also reduces the demand for misinformation by creating informed networks that can supply context in real time. Raising the epistemic quality of our public conversation is climate action by which we can slow the spread of false information and ground advocacy in transparent evidence and tangible conservation outcomes.
Citations
Climate Working Group. (2025, July 23). A critical review of impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the U.S. climate. U.S. Department of Energy. https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/DOE_Critical_Review_of_Impacts_of_GHG_Emissions_on_the_US_Climate_July_2025.pdf
Del Vicario, M., Bessi, A., Zollo, F., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2016). The spreading of misinformation online. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(3), 554–559. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1517441113
Del Vicario, M., Vivaldo, G., Bessi, A., Zollo, F., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2016). Echo chambers: Emotional contagion and group polarization on Facebook. Scientific Reports, 6, 37825. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep37825
Elsevier. (n.d.). False information. In ScienceDirect Topics. Retrieved August 29, 2025, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/false-information
Encyclopaedia Britannica. (n.d.). Confirmation bias. In Britannica. Retrieved August 29, 2025, from https://www.britannica.com/science/confirmation-bias
Hajek, A., & König, H.-H. (2022). Climate anxiety, loneliness and perceived social isolation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(22), 14991. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192214991
Hausfather, Z. (2025). How the DOE and EPA used and misused my research. The Climate Brink. https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/how-the-doe-and-epa-used-and-misused
Inside Climate News. (2025, July 30). Climate scientists fight against Energy Department report. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/30072025/climate-scientists-fight-against-energy-department-report/
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2023). Climate change 2023: Synthesis report. Summary for policymakers. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf
NOAA Climate.gov. (n.d.). Fifth National Climate Assessment: Climate change impacts are increasing. Retrieved August 29, 2025, from https://www.climate.gov/news-features/feed/fifth-national-climate-assessment-climate-change-impacts-are-increasing
Princeton Public Library. (n.d.). Misinformation, disinformation & malinformation: A guide. Retrieved August 29, 2025, from https://princetonlibrary.org/guides/misinformation-disinformation-malinformation-a-guide/
Science Magazine. (2025). Contrarian climate assessment by U.S. government draws swift pushback. https://www.science.org/content/article/contrarian-climate-assessment-u-s-government-draws-swift-pushback
Science Feedback. (2025). Misleading U.S. Department of Energy climate report chooses bias over science, climate scientists say. https://science.feedback.org/review/misleading-u-s-department-energy-climate-report-chooses-bias-over-science-climate-scientists-say
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2025, July 23). EPA releases proposal to rescind Obama-era Endangerment Finding, regulations that paved the way for greenhouse gas limits. https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-releases-proposal-rescind-obama-era-endangerment-finding-regulations-paved-way
The Washington Post. (2025, July 31). Endangerment repeal climate science report [News article]. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2025/07/31/endangerment-repeal-climate-science-report/
World Resources Institute. (n.d.). 2023 IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate change findings. Retrieved August 29, 2025, from https://www.wri.org/insights/2023-ipcc-ar6-synthesis-report-climate-change-findings#:~:text=Drawing%20on%20the%20findings%20of,available%20scientific%20assessment%20of%20climate
Yale Climate Connections. (2023, December 19). The surprising connection between eco-anxiety and loneliness. https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2023/12/the-surprising-connection-between-eco-anxiety-and-loneliness/
Yale Program on Climate Change Communication & George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication. (2025). Climate change in the American mind: Beliefs & attitudes, Spring 2025. https://climatecommunication.gmu.edu/all/climate-change-in-the-american-mind-beliefs-attitudes-spring-2025/