Key Takeaways
- There is strong evidence to suggest that well-funded parties are trying to sow doubt around change through misinformation. We should remain sceptical of the source of information.
- We should be conscious of confirmation bias (our desire to confirm existing beliefs) and echo chambers. Without conscious thought and challenge we are likely to gravitate towards narratives that sound more appealing and comfortable, which can ultimately result in a lack of action that has the potential to leave everyone worse off.
- There is strong evidence to suggest that well-funded parties are trying to sow doubt around change through misinformation. We should remain sceptical of the source of information.
- We should be conscious of confirmation bias (our desire to confirm existing beliefs) and echo chambers. Without conscious thought and challenge we are likely to gravitate towards narratives that sound more appealing and comfortable, which can ultimately result in a lack of action that has the potential to leave everyone worse off.
Detail
There is so much inconsistent information on climate change that it is understandably a nightmare knowing what to believe. The main drivers are:
There is so much inconsistent information on climate change that it is understandably a nightmare knowing what to believe. The main drivers are:
- Uncertainty - there is a high degree of uncertainty around many aspects of climate change (e.g. a number of potential impacts are difficult to predict, and not all scientists agree on which solutions should receive the most attention). There is therefore genuine debate and conflicting opinions amongst the scientific community, which can add to public confusion. However, we believe that if you step back and look at the many aspects of this issue where there is widespread agreement, then the path forward becomes much clearer (our content aims to do just that).
- Misinformation - a much more significant driver of public confusion is misinformation (false or misleading information about climate change). This can be split into two categories, intentional and unintentional.
Disinformation (intentional misinformation)
This is where parties with vested interests deliberately try to confuse the public about issues around climate change, examples include:
There is growing evidence that the fossil fuel industry has gone to great lengths to deceive the public on these issues. Here are some well referenced resources on the topic:
Earthrise Studios: 10 min Youtube documentary that covers misinformation and climate cover up
Climate Town: 15 min Youtube documentary on the history of Exxon’s information campaigns
Nature Journal: more detailed research paper showing the full extent of climate misinformation as well as strategies to combat it
This is where parties with vested interests deliberately try to confuse the public about issues around climate change, examples include:
- Outright denial of climate science
- Downplaying the severity/urgency of the issue
- Overstating the costs of climate action (and understating the costs of inaction)
- Overstating the downsides of alternative energy sources
There is growing evidence that the fossil fuel industry has gone to great lengths to deceive the public on these issues. Here are some well referenced resources on the topic:
Earthrise Studios: 10 min Youtube documentary that covers misinformation and climate cover up
Climate Town: 15 min Youtube documentary on the history of Exxon’s information campaigns
Nature Journal: more detailed research paper showing the full extent of climate misinformation as well as strategies to combat it
Unintentional misinformation
We believe the vast majority of misinformation is spread and exaggerated unintentionally or unconsciously as people look for and share sources that confirm existing beliefs (“the human element”). This works both ways. Most people don’t want to believe we’re heading for trouble and therefore there is lots of information in the media and on the internet which downplays the severity of this situation. At the same time there are also sources that exaggerate the problem.
If you are interested in learning more, including more on how social media plays a part in spreading misinformation, see this article or watch The Social Dilemma on Netflix.
Ultimately, we need a trusted source of information. See here for more on who we believe, and why.
We believe the vast majority of misinformation is spread and exaggerated unintentionally or unconsciously as people look for and share sources that confirm existing beliefs (“the human element”). This works both ways. Most people don’t want to believe we’re heading for trouble and therefore there is lots of information in the media and on the internet which downplays the severity of this situation. At the same time there are also sources that exaggerate the problem.
If you are interested in learning more, including more on how social media plays a part in spreading misinformation, see this article or watch The Social Dilemma on Netflix.
Ultimately, we need a trusted source of information. See here for more on who we believe, and why.