The world hoped the COVID-19 pandemic's misinformation crisis would end with vaccine rollouts. Instead, it morphed into a new strain: climate misinformation. Despite scientific consensus, climate deniers peddle falsehoods fueled by fossil fuel giants, political agendas, and disinformation networks.

This misinformation isn't confined to social media. Due to inadequate science reporting in mainstream media, false claims sometimes find their way into news reports inadvertently. Moreover, the journalistic practice of presenting 'both sides' of an issue, even when one side is grounded in scientific consensus, provides a platform for climate deniers to propagate their misinformation. Climate change is not a matter of debate; the science has long been settled. Yet, disinformation actors exploit journalistic norms to sow doubt and confusion. Not everything can be linked to climate change-you need to back up your findings with researches and studies. Climate change is also an all-encompassing and intersectional issue-it impacts everything from gender to health to economy.

One of the most illuminating cases of climate disinformation was related to American oil giant ExxonMobil, which conducted studies on greenhouse gas emissions, only to dismiss the findings and launch a disinformation campaign to discredit climate science. Despite the findings revealing impacts of fossil fuel, the company not only countered the science, but also spread fear claiming that fossil fuel was vital for the economy. The decades-long false claims were conclusively debunked by Inside Climate News, a US outlet, which published a nine-part series in 2015 titled Exxon: The Road Not Taken. Based on company memos and documents dating from 1970s and 1980s, as well as interviews with former employees, scientists and officials, the 21000-word investigation, which was a finalist for Pulitzer Prize in 2016, shed light on how a powerful corporation buried the findings and instead went on a PR campaign to cast doubt on science.

The consequences of climate misinformation are dire. It undermines public trust in scientific institutions, experts, and the urgent need for action to address the climate crisis. Misinformation campaigns

downplay the human-driven causes of climate change and obstruct efforts toward solutions.

While climate misinformation takes several deceptive forms, each is aimed at creating doubt and confusion. Climate denialism is rejection of climate change as a phenomenon, as well as its cause and effects. The deniers claim climate change is a hoax, global temperature is not rising and the warming is a natural process.

Another term climate skepticism, often used interchangeably with climate denialism, focuses on doubt and uncertainty about climate change. It casts uncertainty over both climate science and the efficacy of climate action. Climate skeptics selectively use data, often cherry-picking information to misrepresent scientific findings, thus sowing seeds of doubt among the public.

Terms such as discourse of distraction and delay have also gained currency. This category accepts climate change exists, but they justify inaction. Another prevalent term is conspiracy theory, belief in events that ordinary people have no way of knowing and are often attributed to powerful forces. Conspiracy theories related to climate change include fabricated narratives blaming climate change on external forces. One example of conspiracy theory is so-called Climategate. In 2009, when scientists' emails were stolen and published online, the messages were portrayed as evidence that they were falsifying data to mislead the public about climate change.

The most important perhaps is greenwashing, misleading claims about environment friendliness of products or practices. Companies employ deceptive marketing tactics to portray themselves as champions of climate action while masking their harmful practices. This marketing spin obscures the true impact of corporations and their lack of genuine commitment to tackling the climate crisis.

Who spreads these falsehoods? Fossil fuel companies, politicians, disinformation networks, and even well-meaning individuals sharing unverified information. Fossil fuel companies and their PR arms benefit from the false narratives around climate change. As seen in the case of ExxonMobil, they have the incentives to spread lies about the science because the stakes are high: their business depends on undermining the science. Politicians, particularly from the extreme right, spread it to influence public opinion for political gain. There are also disinformation networks that create distrust and panic and profit from it. Finally, people unwittingly share unverified information online. They do so to alert their family and friends, but it can have unintended consequences in a digital space where a post goes viral quickly.

In Nepal, misinformation often proliferates during times of crisis, such as the monsoon season, when landslides and floods occur.

In 2023, we debunked several photos and videos, claiming to show disasters that were false. Social media users shared contents with claims it showed landslides or floods in a particular region, but online investigation found it to be wrong or misleading. Most photos or videos were from South Asian countries. In doing so, the disinformers took advantage of geographical similarity in the region.

How can we counter climate misinformation? One important step is raising awareness and developing critical thinking. The idea is to empower people with facts and tools so that they don't fall for falsehoods.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australian researcher and founder of Cranky Uncle, an online game against misinformation, developed a taxonomy called FLICC. The acronym stands for Fake Experts, Logical Fallacies, Impossible Expectations, Cherry Picking and Conspiracy Theories. We have already dealt with some of these terms. Fake experts often masquerade as genuine climate scientists, misleading people. Logical fallacy is when conclusions don't logically follow from the premise. Impossible expectation is defined as a demand for certainty while science is an enquiry into an issue and uncertainty is part of the scientific method.

While fact-checkers, journalists and educators have their work cut out for them debunking pseudoscience and falsehoods, scientists must bridge the gap between scientific knowledge and public understanding. They can do so by translating complex research into accessible language.

Adhikari is editor of NepalCheck.Org, a fact-checking platform in Nepal