For decades, climate scientists have battled claims that cold winters disprove global warming or that natural climate cycles absolve humanity of responsibility. But the landscape of climate disinformation is shifting. Experts now warn that the most potent falsehoods are no longer about whether the climate is changing, but about whether the response to it is feasible, fair, or worth the cost.
“The era of climate denial is pretty much over,” said Ned Mendez, head of research and insights at digital campaigning agency 411. “The disinformation industry has moved one rung downstream. It’s not really about whether the fight about global warming is real, it’s about whether or not the response is feasible, whether it’s fair and whether it is worth the price.”
This evolution fits into a broader political context of “greenlash” — a term describing growing resistance to climate action. Eva Morel, secretary of the French climate disinformation watchdog Quota Climat, explained that outright denial is no longer the most common form of climate disinformation. Instead, narratives are shaped by the news cycle: political debates, policy documents, international summits like COPs, and extreme weather events such as heatwaves, floods, and wildfires.
Political Actors and False Narratives
While European leaders broadly agree that climate change is real and must be addressed, denial persists in some political circles. In Germany, the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) has questioned the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change. Others echo statements from US President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly called climate change a “con job” and attacked European climate policies as a “green new scam.”
False claims about extreme weather events have surged. During Europe’s record-breaking heatwave in June, viral posts on social media argued that high temperatures were not unusual, citing heatwaves in London during the 1970s. Climate scientists report increased hostility and harassment, with many online blaming them for failed climate action. “People argue that they have been too alarmist, not educational enough, that they have pointed towards the wrong solutions,” Morel said. “So the blame is placed on the experts.”
When eastern Spain experienced a year’s worth of precipitation in October 2024, disinformation about the disaster — which claimed over 230 lives — spread rapidly. False claims alleged that dams were intentionally removed to intensify floods and that the EU’s biodiversity strategy and river restoration policy caused the catastrophe. Politicians from Spain’s far-right Vox party, which contests climate change, helped propagate these claims.
Deep institutional mistrust underpins these narratives, according to Mendez. “If you’re primed to distrust an institution, even if they give you quite useful climate advice, you may think they’re making it up to make a point.”
Recurring Themes: Punitive Plans and Foreign Intrusion
Several recurring narratives dominate climate disinformation. One portrays the green transition as a “punitive plan” imposed by a remote Brussels elite. This discourse flares up in response to green legislation, hiding behind legitimate policy debates about competitiveness and red tape. “This links to accusations of private jet owning hypocrites lecturing you about your car,” Mendez said. “It rides a lot of other culture war stories.”
Another narrative spins public opinion against renewable energy, presenting wind and solar power as a “foreign intrusion” that undermines “climate sovereignty.” During the Iberian Peninsula blackout in spring 2025, which affected mainland Portugal and peninsular Spain, widespread theories argued that reliance on solar and wind destabilised the grid. A final report by the Spanish grid operator later debunked these claims, but the damage to public trust had already been done.
The rise of AI-generated content adds a new dimension. Synthetic images and videos of natural disasters are increasingly used to amplify disinformation, making it harder for audiences to distinguish real events from fabricated ones. As the EU pushes forward with its Green Deal and climate adaptation measures — such as those outlined in Brussels’ recent focus on adaptation after deadly heatwaves — the battle against disinformation is becoming as critical as the fight against climate change itself.
