Disinformation in the Digital Age: Climate Change, Media Dynamics, and Strategies for Resilience

Abstract

Scientific disinformation has emerged as a critical challenge at the interface of science and society. This paper examines how false or misleading scientific content proliferates across both social media and traditional media and evaluates strategies to counteract its spread. We conducted a comprehensive literature review of research on scientific misinformation across disciplines and regions, with particular focus on climate change and public health as exemplars. Our findings indicate that social media algorithms and user dynamics can amplify false scientific claims, as seen in case studies of viral misinformation campaigns on vaccines and climate change. Traditional media, meanwhile, are not immune to spreading inaccuracies—journalistic practices such as sensationalism or “false balance” in reporting have at times distorted scientific facts, impacting public understanding. We review efforts to fight disinformation, including technological tools for detection, the application of inoculation theory and prebunking techniques, and collaborative approaches that bridge scientists and journalists. To empower individuals, we propose practical guidelines for critically evaluating scientific information sources and emphasize the importance of digital and scientific literacy. Finally, we discuss methods to quantify the prevalence and impact of scientific disinformation—ranging from social network analysis to surveys of public belief—and compare trends across regions and scientific domains. Our results underscore that combating scientific disinformation requires an interdisciplinary, multi-pronged approach, combining improvements in science communication, education, and policy. We conducted a scoping review of 85 open-access studies focused on climate-related misinformation and disinformation, selected through a systematic screening process based on PRISMA criteria. This approach was chosen to address the lack of comprehensive mappings that synthesize key themes and identify research gaps in this fast-growing field. The analysis classified the literature into 17 thematic clusters, highlighting key trends, gaps, and emerging challenges in the field. Our results reveal a strong dominance of studies centered on social media amplification, political denialism, and cognitive inoculation strategies, while underlining a lack of research on fact-checking mechanisms and non-Western contexts. We conclude with recommendations for strengthening the resilience of both the public and information ecosystems against the spread of false scientific claims.

1. Introduction

Misinformation and disinformation about scientific topics have proliferated in recent years, posing a significant threat to public understanding of science and evidence-based policy (Aïmeur et al., 2023; Broda & Strömbäck, 2024; Pérez-Escolar et al., 2023; Tomassi et al., 2024). Misinformation refers to false or inaccurate information spread without necessarily malicious intent, whereas disinformation denotes the deliberate dissemination of false information to mislead. Both forms, along with related phenomena like malinformation (genuine information used in a misleading context), contribute to what researchers call the current “infodemic” in science communication (Rubin et al., 2022). This study adopts a scoping review methodology to systematically map the existing literature on climate-related misinformation and disinformation. The rise of social networks and rapid digital communication has exponentially increased the reach and speed of misinformation spread, making false claims on scientific issues more globally pervasive than ever. At the same time, traditional mass media channels—television, newspapers, radio—continue to shape public perceptions of science and can sometimes propagate inaccuracies through sensationalist or uncritical reporting. This trend is evident across multiple scientific domains. High-profile examples include the persistence of anti-vaccine falsehoods and conspiracy theories, climate change denial narratives, and unfounded “miracle cures” or health scares (Vernon, 2017). Disseminators of anti-vaccine propaganda and climate change denial, among others who promote unscientific claims, have effectively “launched an attack on science”, undermining trust in scientific expertise (Douglas & Sutton, 2015). These false narratives carry real-world consequences: they represent “real threats to the health of millions of people and the protection of the environment” (Mahl et al., 2023; Rubin et al., 2022). For instance, even before the official declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation about the virus’s origin, prevention, and treatment spread widely on the internet, leading the World Health Organization (WHO) to warn of an accompanying infodemic that would exacerbate the public health crisis (Bessi et al., 2015). Likewise, decades of climate science disinformation—often traceable to vested interests—have sown confusion about climate change and impeded collective action. In this context, understanding the mechanisms of disinformation in scientific communication is of paramount importance. Social media platforms employ engagement-driven algorithms that can unwittingly amplify sensational or false scientific content (Brady et al., 2023). Traditional media outlets, pressured by competition and fast news cycles, may at times sacrifice accuracy for attention, leading to distorted science news (a phenomenon sometimes termed “scienceploitation” when scientific findings are misrepresented (Murdoch et al., 2018). The resulting misinformation ecosystem erodes public trust in science and diminishes society’s capacity to make evidence-informed decisions (Rubin et al., 2022). In response, researchers and practitioners are exploring countermeasures ranging from automated fact-checking tools to educational interventions (Crease, 2019). Strategies like prebunking (inoculating audiences against falsehoods before they encounter them) and debunking (exposing and correcting false claims after the fact) are being tested in fields such as climate change communication and public health. There is also a growing recognition that scientists, communicators, and journalists must work together proactively to improve the accuracy and clarity of scientific information reaching the public. Strengthening the critical thinking skills and media literacy of audiences is equally crucial, so that individuals are better equipped to discern credible information from false or misleading claims.

A scoping review was selected as the appropriate method given the fragmented and rapidly expanding nature of the research on climate-related misinformation. Existing studies often focus on specific cases, platforms, or regions, but no comprehensive synthesis currently maps the main themes and gaps across the field. By systematically organizing and categorizing the available literature, this study aims to provide a foundational overview to guide future research and interventions. The aim of this scoping review is to provide a broad overview of climate-related misinformation, categorize the major research themes, and identify gaps and underexplored areas in the current literature. We focus on five key areas: (1) the role of social media in spreading scientific misinformation, including algorithmic amplification and viral case studies; (2) the contribution of traditional media practices to scientific misinformation and the impact of sensationalism; (3) current strategies and tools for fighting disinformation and the value of collaboration between scientists and journalists; (4) practical tips to help the public avoid being misled by false scientific information; and (5) methods to quantify misinformation prevalence and its impact, including cross-regional and cross-disciplinary comparisons. By analyzing these aspects, we seek to provide a comprehensive overview of the challenges and potential solutions, in order to inform better practices in science communication and policy.

2. Methods

2.1. Literature Review

The papers were selected through a scoping review, which involved a general selection of papers concerning disinformation and environmental sustainability with the objective of mapping the broad field of research. The scoping review was conducted on the Scopus database, which is maintained by Elsevier and contains a comprehensive collection of academic papers. The search targeted the fields of title, abstract, and keywords. Only those papers that were open access and written in English were selected for inclusion. The search query, defined as the sequence of keywords and logical operators used to search for information within a database, was as follows:

(sustainability OR “climate change” OR “greenhouse gases”) AND (disinformation OR misinformation OR malinformation OR “information disorder”)

Filters were applied to include only papers published in English and open-access articles. No restrictions were set on the year of publication, ensuring comprehensive temporal coverage. In other words, the search included papers that discuss sustainability, climate change, or greenhouse gases and that address misinformation, misinformation, or information disorder. A total of 247 papers were selected and entered into an Excel matrix.

The objective was to evaluate the papers in order to identify those most pertinent to the research question through a systematic review. The latter was based on a PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) scheme, which is an international standard for this type of analysis. PRISMA is an evidence-based set of guidelines designed to help authors transparently report systematic reviews and meta-analyses. It provides a structured framework for ensuring the reproducibility and quality of the review process, covering key aspects such as search strategy, inclusion criteria, and data extraction methods. The PRISMA scheme ensures the reliability and replicability of the process, which can be illustrated by means of the flow chart presented in Figure 1:

2.1.1. Identification

The initial stage of the process was to prepare a literature matrix, establishing the optimal conditions for conducting the search. Each row of the table is assigned an article, while the columns report ID, authors, year of publication, journal, citations, DOI, and other useful information (Figure 2).

2.1.2. Screening

The subsequent stage was to identify papers actually dealing with disinformation and environmental sustainability. Papers directly addressing environmental sustainability, climate change, and disinformation were included in the research. Other papers that did not deal directly with these issues were excluded. After the screening, 144 papers were included, while 103 were excluded.

2.1.3. Eligibility

In the eligibility stage, the papers were read in full for further evaluation, with those focusing primarily on misinformation about climate change or addressing environmental sustainability—such as new technologies or strategies to improve the climate situation—being selected and any that do not cover these topics excluded.

2.1.4. Inclusion

The remaining 85 papers were subjected to rigorous examination and analysis to facilitate the subsequent classification and clustering process.

2.2. Classification and Clustering

The thematic clusters were identified through an inductive, qualitative analysis of the 85 selected papers, based on repeated readings and manual categorization of key topics addressed in each study. Each article was independently reviewed by the authors, and disagreements were resolved through discussion to ensure consistency. We opted for a manual interpretative approach rather than relying on keyword frequency analysis or bibliometric mapping tools because our primary aim was to capture the conceptual linkages across studies, which might not emerge from purely automated methods. Following the completion of the systematic review process, the articles were classified into 17 principal clusters. A cluster is defined as a group of articles or studies that address similar or related topics. The selection criterion was based on identifying the principal topics covered by the articles, in a relatively unspecific manner, with the objective of including each article in two or more clusters. This approach was taken in order to ensure an overall view of the topics and to facilitate work on a broad field of research. Subsequently, some clusters were divided into sub-clusters in order to facilitate the identification of more specific topics within the broader main theme.

In the following analysis, 17 primary clusters emerged around the themes of climate change and the spread of mis/disinformation. The first cluster centers on the concepts of disinformation and misinformation, which are often discussed together despite their distinction: disinformation involves deliberately spreading false or misleading information, while misinformation refers to the inadvertent sharing of inaccuracies. Climate change forms a separate, overarching cluster, followed by social media, which includes specific sub-clusters such as Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), TikTok, YouTube, and Reddit. Denialism is another distinct cluster, with an additional focus on the characteristics of deniers. Further clusters address ignorance, fact-checking, politics, education, oil companies, advertising, the scientific community, scientific communication/literacy, environmental sustainability, and new sustainable technologies (including renewable energies, biofuels, electric vehicles, and more). A cluster on cognitive defenses explores psychological techniques (e.g., inoculation theory) for enhancing public understanding of climate change. Articles that touch on climate change alongside pandemics or vaccines were also included if their primary concern remained climate change. Lastly, a cluster on IT technologies examines the role of artificial intelligence, bots, deepfakes, language models, and automated classification in either spreading or mitigating misinformation.

Beyond these thematic clusters, three additional context categories provide insight into who or what is being studied rather than the subject matter: (1) articles that focus on a finite data sample, (2) the nationality of populations studied involved (e.g., Europeans, Americans, Australians, Asians), and (3) students. It is important to note that the thematic clusters identified in this review are not mutually exclusive. Many studies address multiple themes simultaneously, reflecting the interconnected nature of climate-related misinformation. For example, research on social media often overlaps with political denialism and cognitive defense strategies. While clusters were organized for analytical clarity, their boundaries are inherently fluid, and interrelationships among themes are common.

Below is a summary table (

Table 1. Overview of the identified clusters and context categories, each assigned a unique ID and a descriptive name.

ID	Cluster Name
1	Disinformation and misinformation
2	Climate change
3	Social media
4	Denialism
5	Ignorance
6	Fact-checking
7	Politics
8	Education
9	Oil companies
10	Advertising
11	Scientific community
12	Scientific communication/literacy
13	Environmental sustainability
14	New sustainable technologies
15	Cognitive defenses
16	Climate change/pandemics/vaccines
17	IT technologies
18	Articles (context category)
19	Nationality of populations studied (context category)
20	Students (context category)

) listing the clusters by ID:

3. Results

As a direct outcome of the systematic review, extensive tables were compiled to capture the articles that fall under each thematic cluster and sub-cluster presented in this study. The tables presenting the full dataset of articles—grouped according to each identified cluster—are included in the Appendix A. Readers interested in the complete details of the reviewed works and their classification can refer to these tables. By placing them in an appendix, the main body of the manuscript remains focused on the core findings and discussion, while still offering access to the complete research results for in-depth examination.

As depicted in Figure 3, the “Climate change” cluster features the highest number of papers (45), reflecting its central role in the scholarly discourse. The second-most represented cluster, “Disinformation and misinformation”, comprises 33 papers and underscores a widespread concern with how false or misleading information shapes climate-related perceptions. Following these are “Social media” (with around 25 papers), “Denialism”, and “Politics”, all of which demonstrate a moderate but significant level of academic attention.

These clusters collectively indicate how public discourse, belief formation, and policy debates converge around climate issues and misinformation. At the lower end of the spectrum, the “Ignorance” and “Fact-checking” clusters contain the fewest papers, highlighting a relative gap in the current literature on the role of unawareness and the systematic verification of claims in the broader context of climate-related knowledge.

The distribution of articles and reviews among the analyzed papers shows 57.6% of the analyzed works are reviews, while the remaining 42.4% are original articles (Figure 4).

This indicates that a considerable portion of the literature takes the form of comprehensive overviews, synthesizing and evaluating existing studies within the field. In contrast, articles typically present original findings derived from a finite dataset and a clearly defined methodology. The resulting balance between reviews and articles highlights both the breadth and depth of scholarly engagement with the topics under investigation.

The annual trend of publications from 2006 to mid-year 2024 reveals a marked increase in climate change-related literature, particularly concerning misinformation and environmental sustainability (Figure 5).

In the complete matrix of 247 papers (blue line), the number of publications grows sharply, while the refined “post-systematic review” dataset of 85 papers (red line) also exhibits an upward trajectory, albeit at a more moderate pace. By “post-systematic review”, we refer to the refined set of papers remaining after applying our detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria, which involve meticulously screening the initial pool of studies for quality, relevance, and alignment with predetermined standards. As a result, although the original corpus is larger, the final selection focuses more precisely on misinformation and environmental sustainability. This distinction in growth rates suggests that while overall scholarly output has accelerated in recent years, the systematic review process confines the final pool to the most rigorously vetted and thematically pertinent studies. To better understand how scholarly interest in different themes has evolved over time, we created a heatmap showing the distribution of reviewed papers across thematic clusters and publication periods. This visualization reveals which areas have gained momentum in recent years and highlights emerging research trends (Figure 6).

As shown in Figure 7, the geographic distribution of studies reveals a predominant focus on European (eleven papers) and North American (nine papers), suggesting that much of the existing climate change-related research centers on Western contexts. Australia follows with six papers, while South America and Asia remain substantially underrepresented at two papers and one paper, respectively.

Notably, there are no studies examining respondents in Africa, underscoring a critical gap in global coverage. This uneven geographic emphasis limits the generalizability of findings and highlights the need for more balanced research efforts that include underrepresented regions, ensuring a broader understanding of how respondents worldwide perceive and respond to climate change and related misinformation.

In the domain of cognitive defenses, inoculation theory stands out as the predominant focus, with 91% of the reviewed studies examining its effectiveness in enhancing resilience against misinformation. This emphasis underscores the broad acceptance and applicability of inoculation-based strategies across various contexts related to climate change. By contrast, only 9% address cognitive complexity, suggesting a relatively underexplored avenue for understanding how more nuanced mental processing might counteract the spread of misleading information (Falegnami et al., 2024a, 2024b; Tomassi et al., 2025). Figure 8 visually represents this disparity, highlighting the strong inclination toward inoculation theory in current research and pointing to opportunities for broader exploration of alternative or complementary cognitive defense mechanisms.

By identifying a dedicated “Social Media” cluster through the systematic review, it became possible to delve more deeply into how such platforms contribute to the spread of climate change-related misinformation and sustainability falsehoods. This clustering approach not only highlighted the prevalence of misleading narratives within social networks but also enabled a focused examination of the mechanisms by which these platforms shape public perceptions of environmental topics. Thus, the present study also examines how false or misleading information surrounding climate change and sustainability spreads across social media platforms. Social media platforms, especially those characterized by rapid post circulation and high user engagement, can become fertile ground for misinformation, ranging from denialist claims about global warming to the misrepresentation of sustainable practices. Such dynamics mirror insights noted in broader research on information disorder, which shows that the same methods used to diffuse fake news in contexts like politics or public health also apply in environmental topics. Bots and algorithmic amplifiers play a crucial role, targeting emotionally charged content about the environment to maximize clicks and shares. In turn, this raises new ethical and cultural considerations, underscoring the need for robust digital literacy and critical thinking to help users identify false narratives about issues that have far-reaching implications for planetary well-being.

This study reveals a clear emphasis on X (formerly Twitter), which is discussed more often than any other specific platform. Notably, seven papers explicitly examine how user interactions, content propagation, and potential misinformation dynamics unfold on X, surpassing even the broad category of social networks in general. In contrast, Facebook appears less frequently, cited by only two studies, while YouTube, TikTok, and Reddit each emerge as focal points in a single paper apiece. Beyond identifying which platforms have been most frequently studied, several patterns emerge across the literature. On X (formerly Twitter), the rapid spread of climate misinformation is often linked to amplification by bots and coordinated networks. Facebook studies highlight the role of community groups and targeted advertising in reinforcing false narratives. Research on Reddit emphasizes the polarization of discussions within specific subreddits. TikTok and YouTube present challenges related to algorithmic recommendation systems that can funnel users toward misleading content. Across platforms, common challenges include the speed of viral diffusion, the formation of echo chambers, and the difficulty of moderating misinformation without infringing on free expression (Figure 9). Surprisingly, no paper addresses Instagram, despite its global popularity and the considerable influence of its image-driven content and algorithmic feeds on user perceptions.

These results hint at several factors influencing scholarly attention. First, platforms like X are designed around rapid, public text-based exchanges, making it simpler to capture and analyze large volumes of user interactions. This ease of data collection and the platform’s openness could explain why X receives heightened scrutiny compared to sites such as Instagram, where data are often more visually oriented and less accessible to researchers. Second, while Facebook remains an important venue for sharing information (and misinformation), researchers may be shifting their focus to newer or more public-facing platforms like X and TikTok, or to anonymous/highly specialized forums such as Reddit, each of which presents different opportunities and challenges for misinformation studies. Finally, the absence of Instagram suggests a vital gap, considering how visual content and influencer-driven promotions may affect the spread of misleading information. Future research would benefit from a more balanced exploration of these popular yet under-investigated platforms, not only to capture the full spectrum of social media–enabled information disorder but also to develop platform-specific countermeasures that address the diverse ways misinformation can appear and circulate.

4. Discussion

4.1. Interpretation of Key Findings

The findings of this study highlight several crucial patterns in the landscape of climate change misinformation research. First and foremost, climate change itself emerged as the most prominent thematic cluster in the literature, with 45 papers, underscoring its centrality in scholarly discourse on misinformation. This indicates that false or misleading information about climate science is not a fringe issue but a core concern attracting extensive academic attention. The substantial focus on “Disinformation and Misinformation” as a cluster (33 papers, the second-largest) further emphasizes that researchers are deeply engaged in understanding the mechanisms and effects of information disorder in the climate context. In tandem, a significant number of studies concentrate on “Social Media” (around 25 papers) and related subtopics, reflecting recognition of online platforms as key vectors for spreading climate misinformation. This distribution aligns with the notion that the rise of social networks has fundamentally altered information dynamics, making the diffusion of false claims easier and faster than ever (Treen et al., 2020). Indeed, social media’s engagement-driven algorithms can amplify sensational or misleading content, rapidly propagating viral climate falsehoods. The findings validate concerns raised by prior analyses that digital media ecosystems act as a “digital wildfire” where misinformation can “wreak havoc in the real world” if unchecked (Karlova & Fisher, 2013). While the rapid spread of misinformation across platforms is often likened to a “digital wildfire”, it is important to note that the design and algorithms of different platforms influence the dynamics of this spread. For example, platforms like Twitter are driven by real-time interaction and amplification via retweets, while Facebook’s design encourages prolonged engagement through likes, comments, and shares within closed groups. In contrast, platforms like TikTok rely heavily on algorithmic recommendations, which can either reinforce or challenge users’ existing beliefs depending on the content they are exposed to. These differences shape how misinformation spreads and how quickly it reaches audiences.

Notably, this review found dedicated clusters for “Denialism” and “Politics”, each comprising a moderate but non-trivial portion of the literature. This indicates that climate change misinformation is not only a communication problem but also a socio-political phenomenon. The presence of a “Denialism” cluster reflects sustained scholarly interest in the organized rejection of climate science. Decades of climate science denial—often orchestrated by vested interests—have “sown confusion about climate change and impeded collective action”. Our findings reinforce this: the academic community has documented how climate denial narratives, frequently rooted in ideological or economic agendas, constitute a concerted “attack on science” that undermines public trust. The “Politics” cluster likewise underscores that misinformation is deeply entwined with political discourse and policy debates. This resonates with observations that climate misinformation has been used to manufacture doubt and polarization for political ends, for example by casting climate change as a partisan issue or framing it within broader culture wars (de Nadal, 2024). The research attention to political aspects in our review mirrors real-world patterns where climate facts are often contested along ideological lines, thereby influencing governance and public opinion (Al-Rawi et al., 2021).

Another key finding is the relatively small number of studies in clusters like “Ignorance” and “Fact-Checking”, which were the least-populated categories. This gap suggests that certain facets of the problem—such as the deliberate cultivation of ignorance (for instance, through casting doubt on scientific consensus) and the systematic verification of climate claims—remain underexplored in comparison to others. The paucity of “Ignorance” studies may point to an underappreciated concept of agnotology (the study of how ignorance is produced) in climate discourse, even though history shows that sowing doubt about well-established science has been a key misinformation tactic (Karl et al., 1995; McCright & Dunlap, 2003). Similarly, the limited focus on fact-checking implies that, while misinformation propagation is well studied, academic inquiry into solutions for correcting falsehoods has not kept pace. This is somewhat concerning given that rigorous fact-checking and myth debunking are vital to counter misinformation. It highlights an opportunity for future work to develop and evaluate more effective fact-checking frameworks specifically tailored to climate narratives, as the current literature only sporadically covers efforts like real-time verification or the role of dedicated organizations (e.g., climate fact-checking initiatives) in the climate arena.

The type of publications included in the review is also telling. We found that 57.6% of the analyzed works were literature reviews, with 42.4% being original research articles. This imbalance toward review papers indicates a maturity in the field—a considerable body of scholarship has accumulated to the point where numerous authors synthesize and evaluate prior findings. On one hand, this abundance of reviews provides comprehensive overviews of what is known, suggesting that climate misinformation has been examined from multiple angles (e.g., psychological, sociological, technological) over the years. It underscores breadth: researchers have catalogued phenomena from the spread of conspiracy theories and denialist arguments to public perceptions and mitigation strategies. On the other hand, the slightly smaller share of fresh empirical studies may point to the need for continued original research to fill remaining knowledge gaps. The prevalence of reviews could also reflect the interdisciplinary nature of the topic—scholars may be bridging insights from diverse fields like communication, political science, and environmental studies to form a holistic understanding. In any case, the balance between synthesis and original research observed here highlights both the broad scope of engagement with climate misinformation and the importance of ensuring that new data and experiments continue to advance the field.

Temporal and geographic patterns in the findings offer further insight. There has been a marked increase in publications on climate misinformation from 2006 through 2024, with especially notable growth in the past decade. This trend likely reflects the contemporaneous rise of social media platforms and a series of high-profile misinformation events that have kept climate misinformation in the spotlight. For example, organized denial campaigns and controversial events (such as the “Climategate” incident in 2009 or politicized debates during election cycles) may have spurred academic inquiries, as suggested by the steep upward trajectory of publications. Moreover, the inclusion criteria of our systematic review (which refined the corpus to 85 rigorously relevant studies) still showed an upward trajectory, implying that even after filtering for quality and focus, the volume of research has grown in recent years. This aligns with the broader recognition of an “infodemic” era—scholars are increasingly responding to the challenge of misinformation across domains, and climate change is a prime battleground in this regard. It is also worth noting that public and policy attention to climate change has intensified in the last decade (with successive IPCC reports, global climate agreements, and youth climate movements), which may have catalyzed academic interest in factors that shape public understanding—misinformation being chief among them.

Geographically, our findings reveal a skewed focus: a predominant number of studies investigate Western populations, particularly European (eleven studies) and North American (nine studies) audiences, with far fewer examining Australia (six), South America (two), and Asia (one), and none focusing on Africa. This imbalance indicates that the scholarship on climate misinformation has been concentrated in industrialized countries where the climate change debate is highly politicized and well-funded research institutions exist. Additionally, it is possible that academics from Western countries may have greater access to leading academic journals, making it easier for their work to be published in high-impact outlets compared to researchers from underrepresented regions.

Beyond the geographic focus of study populations, it is also important to consider the production side of climate misinformation research. The majority of studies are authored by researchers based in North America, Europe, and Australia, and are published in journals predominantly based in English-speaking countries. Structural inequalities, such as disparities in research funding, access to high-impact journals, and language barriers, likely contribute to the underrepresentation of voices from the Global South. These factors shape the visibility of certain perspectives and knowledge systems and suggest that current understandings of climate misinformation may be skewed toward Western contexts. It suggests that Western contexts have dominated the research agenda, perhaps because countries like the United States and Australia have seen especially strong organized climate denial efforts and polarized public discourse (Boykoff & Boykoff, 2004; Painter & Ashe, 2012). The absence of African populations in the reviewed studies is particularly striking. This could reflect a gap in both research attention and research capacity: climate misinformation in African contexts (and many parts of the Global South) might be under-studied due to fewer resources or lesser visibility in international journals. It may also hint that climate misinformation manifests differently outside Western narratives, for instance, taking backseat to more immediate developmental and local environmental issues—an aspect that has not been thoroughly captured by the current literature. In summary, the key findings illustrate that while climate change misinformation is widely recognized as a critical issue (with a rich and growing body of work centered on social media, denialism, and politics), there remain blind spots and underexplored areas (such as region-specific dynamics, ignorance as a strategy, and fact-checking methodologies) that temper our full understanding of the global picture.

4.2. Comparison with Previous Studies

When comparing our results with prior studies, we find a strong consonance with the earlier literature, as well as some new perspectives emerging from this work. The prominence of climate change in misinformation scholarship that we observed is consistent with earlier reviews that flagged climate misinformation as a major challenge for science communication. For instance, Treen et al. (2020) note that misinformation about climate change has confused the public, led to political inaction, and stalled support for mitigation policies (Treen et al., 2020). Our review corroborates this by showing climate misinformation as a dominant research area, with social media playing a key role in its spread. Prior research has documented how platforms like Twitter amplify false claims and create echo chambers, reinforcing climate denial beliefs (Al-Rawi et al., 2021). Our findings reflect this, as Twitter (now “X”) is the most-studied platform, while Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram receive comparatively less attention. The study also confirms previous observations about organized climate denial, linking misinformation campaigns to fossil fuel-funded groups and conservative think tanks. Earlier works have demonstrated that vested interests manufacture skepticism for economic and ideological reasons. Our study expands on this by identifying newer misinformation tactics, such as the use of social bots, AI-generated content, and deepfakes to spread disinformation (Brulle & Roberts, 2017).

Additionally, recent research, such as de Nadal (2024), suggests a shift from outright climate denial to “post-denial” narratives, where influencers acknowledge climate change but attack mitigation policies and activists. This finding aligns with our study’s results, which highlight the growing link between climate misinformation and culture wars, with right-wing populist movements portraying climate policies as authoritarian or elitist (de Nadal, 2024).

Our review also confirms a geographic bias in climate misinformation research, which overwhelmingly focuses on North America and Europe, while Africa, Asia, and South America remain underexplored. Similar concerns have been raised by Vivion et al. (2024), who emphasize the need for more research in non-Western contexts (Vivion et al., 2024).

Lastly, our study extends past work by applying a systematic clustering approach to quantify research trends. While prior reviews like Treen et al. (2020) provide a high-level discussion of climate misinformation, our analysis shows the dominance of inoculation theory in misinformation defenses (91% of studies) while alternative cognitive strategies remain underexplored. Overall, our findings reinforce the urgency of addressing climate misinformation and highlight emerging research gaps, such as algorithmic misinformation, regional disparities, and evolving denialist narratives.

4.3. Practical Implications

The widespread dissemination of climate misinformation presents significant challenges for science communication, policymaking, and public trust. One major implication is that false narratives undermine public support for mitigation policies, delaying or weakening climate action. Studies have shown that when the public doubts scientific consensus or underestimates climate risks, they are less likely to support sustainability efforts. This erosion of trust exacerbates political polarization, making climate action more difficult. Political implications include the use of misinformation as a strategic tool in ideological battles. Right-wing populist movements often frame climate initiatives as threats to economic security or as part of a “woke” political agenda. To counteract this, communicators must develop strategies that engage with diverse ideological groups, using messaging that resonates across political lines (de Nadal, 2024).

The economic consequences of climate misinformation are profound. Fossil fuel industries have historically funded disinformation campaigns to maintain political inertia and resist climate regulations. This not only delays renewable energy transitions but also increases long-term economic and environmental costs by worsening climate impacts. Transparency initiatives, such as exposing the financial ties behind misinformation campaigns, are crucial to holding accountable those who deliberately spread false narratives.

Social media platforms play a pivotal role in amplifying climate misinformation. Algorithms on platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube promote engagement-driven content, often giving visibility to misleading narratives (Tomassi et al., 2024). Studies show that over half of highly shared tweets contain climate misinformation, yet platform moderation remains inconsistent. Stronger content moderation policies, algorithmic transparency, and fact-checking measures are needed to curb the spread of misinformation (Al-Rawi et al., 2021).

A multi-pronged intervention strategy is required to combat misinformation effectively. In addition to social and educational strategies, legal and regulatory measures have also been proposed to counter disinformation. However, while legal frameworks can help increase accountability, they are not sufficient on their own to address the complexity and scale of the infodemic. Legal and regulatory measures could further contribute by strengthening online content moderation, increasing transparency in the algorithms used by platforms, and ensuring greater accountability for the spread of false information. At the same time, it is crucial to strike a balance between regulation and the protection of freedom of expression to avoid overreach and censorship. A well-designed legal framework would complement social and technological efforts, creating a more comprehensive and effective strategy to combat misinformation. One key approach is educational resilience, with a focus on inoculation theory, which prepares individuals to recognize misinformation before they encounter it. Interactive initiatives like the Cranky Uncle and Bad News games have successfully trained users to identify climate disinformation techniques. However, our study also finds that other cognitive defense strategies, such as critical thinking training, are underutilized, suggesting a gap in misinformation mitigation approaches.

For scientists and journalists, greater collaboration is essential to prevent misinformation. Researchers should engage more with public communication platforms, ensuring their findings reach audiences directly, while media outlets must avoid false balance—where fringe climate denial perspectives are given undue legitimacy. Fact-checking organizations should also refine their strategies to counteract fast-spreading misinformation, using compelling narratives rather than just debunking isolated claims.

Policy measures must address systemic disinformation. Governments could implement stronger regulations on climate misinformation, including labeling false claims, funding public awareness campaigns, and developing rapid-response teams to counter misinformation spikes during climate events. Tackling climate misinformation requires a coordinated effort across education, media, technology, and policy to fortify public resilience and safeguard climate action. Legal interventions should be seen as complementary tools within a broader ecosystem of solutions, rather than as standalone remedies for the challenges of misinformation.

5. Conclusions

This review underscores that the confluence of engagement-driven social media algorithms and certain journalistic practices (such as sensationalism or false-balance reporting) in traditional media has substantially fueled the proliferation of scientific disinformation, with tangible societal repercussions. False narratives in public health (for example, around vaccines) and climate science (such as climate change denial) exemplify how distorted information can undermine evidence-based policymaking and erode public trust in scientific institutions. These findings carry broader implications for science communication and governance, highlighting a critical need for robust policy interventions and interdisciplinary collaboration among scientists, media organizations, and policymakers. To counter these challenges, our analysis identifies several actionable solutions: proactive prebunking initiatives that inoculate audiences against anticipated falsehoods, enhanced digital and media literacy programs that strengthen critical thinking and source discernment, and stronger partnerships between the scientific community and journalists to elevate accuracy and context in science reporting. We acknowledge that our study has inherent limitations, including potential gaps in the scope or comprehensiveness of the datasets and literature surveyed. The rapid evolution of misinformation means that some patterns identified here may shift over time, and evaluating the long-term efficacy of interventions remains challenging within a constantly changing information ecosystem. Promising directions for future research include the development of AI-driven tools for early detection of scientific misinformation, the refinement of fact-checking strategies tailored to different sociopolitical contexts, and the design of new frameworks to bolster public resilience against false scientific claims. By pursuing these avenues and implementing the solutions identified, stakeholders can strengthen society’s defenses against disinformation and ensure that accurate, evidence-based scientific knowledge remains a cornerstone of public discourse.