• Climate

Insights from 8 Months of Monitoring Climate Misinformation on French TV and Radio: Scale and Narratives

Posted on:  2025-10-22

Summary

Over the course of eight months, Science Feedback and its partners Data for Good and QuotaClimat monitored how climate misinformation circulated on French television and radio. The results are striking: 529 cases of misleading or false claims were detected between January and August 2025, with the number of incidents tripling during the summer months. 

Peaks in misinformation coincided with key political and geopolitical events such as Donald Trump’s inauguration, and parliamentary and senate debates on low-emission zones (ZFE), and France’s energy-planning discussions (PPE3).

The analysis reveals 19 recurring narratives, most of which target solutions to climate change rather than climate science itself (see below for the full list). Over 70% of the cases targeted the energy transition, particularly renewable energies. 

Public broadcasting proved far more resilient than private 24-hour news channels; it was observed to be six times less permeable to misleading narratives.

This unprecedented dataset highlights a paradox: while mainstream media remain the most trusted sources of information, they are increasingly exposed to and sometimes amplify climate misinformation, often through guests, commentators, or politicians.

The report finds that the less media cover climate issues, the more vulnerable they become to disinformation, and calls for stronger safeguards: protection of public broadcasting, transparent editorial standards, and coordinated monitoring systems capable of countering misleading narratives in real time.

Together, these findings underscore the urgency of strengthening the integrity of environmental information to sustain democratic debate and effective climate action.

Download the report

Narratives

Below, we present the list of the 19 most prevalent disinformation narratives identified in our study. For each narrative, we explain why some of the claims promoting it are misleading and contrast them with the scientific consensus on the topic.

While a misleading claim is a discrete statement that is false, inaccurate, or taken out of context, a narrative is the larger pattern that these claims create, repeatedly steering audiences toward the same conclusion (for instance, that ‘renewable energy is not ecological’).

Narrative 01 (Misleading):

Variable renewables make the price of electricity explode 

Takeaway:

Solar and wind electricity are now cheaper to generate than electricity from fossil fuel or nuclear plants. More solar and wind doesn’t necessarily result in more expensive electricity bills.

Summary:

Adding more solar and wind to the grid doesn’t necessarily result in more expensive electricity bills.  

Let’s look at U.S. states where we have reliable and comparable data. We might expect to see that households in states with more solar and wind pay more for electricity, but we don’t see any such correlation. In fact, we’ll find some of the cheapest electricity in states that have recently built large numbers of wind turbines.

Electrical bills are structured differently from place to place, and they do generally include taxes and grid fees, but the largest expense comes from the cost of generating electricity itself. Solar panels and wind turbines are now generally cheaper to build and operate than fossil fuel or nuclear plants, but most grids have a mix of sources, and the most expensive source sets the cost. So, in much of Europe, fossil fuels play an outsized role in setting that cost [1]. In particular, in 2022, gas prices surged following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and electricity markets felt the fallout.

There are many indications that the increase in the share of solar and wind power in the electricity grid is reducing electricity prices on the European market. Due to the investments required in the electricity transmission network, the increase in renewables could raise electricity bills in France by around 15% in the future. These investments meet the needs to update aging infrastructure, adapt to climate change, install new connections related to industry and low-carbon production and strengthen grid structure – and not just the deployment of renewables.

Read more in these articles:

References:

  1. Zakeri et al. (2023) The role of natural gas in setting electricity prices in Europe.

Narrative 02 (Unsupported):

Renewable energy is ineffective or useless because of its intermittency.

Takeaway:

Many countries are able to generate large parts of their electricity from intermittent renewables. There are numerous solutions to solar and wind’s intermittency, such as grid energy storage, that do not rely on fossil fuel power plants.

Summary:

If intermittent renewables – solar panels and wind turbines – were ‘ineffective’ or ‘useless’, then we couldn’t use them as the backbone of an electric grid. Yet many countries do just that. In 2024, Germany generated 43% of its electricity from solar and wind alone, the Netherlands generated 46%, and Denmark generated 69%. Generating half of a country’s electricity from solar and wind would be far more difficult if intermittency made them unworkable.

There are solutions that can provide electricity where there is no sun or wind. Many countries today rely on fossil fuel or nuclear power plants to provide a backstop to intermittent renewables, but these are not the only options. For example, grids may combine solar and wind with hydroelectric dams – hydro is actually a form of non-intermittent renewable energy.

Grids may also combine solar and wind with storage systems. These include pumped-storage dams, which store energy as water in a reservoir that can be released to generate electricity later, and grid-storage batteries. These are not hypothetical systems. The world held 189 gigawatts of pumped-storage capacity and 110 gigawatts of battery capacity by the end of 2024 – each more than the total grid capacities of many small countries.

Read more in these articles:

    Narrative 03 (Lacks context):

    State support for renewables is massive (on the order of tens to hundreds of billions of euros in the coming decades)

    Takeaway:

    In 2020, around the world only around a third of investment in renewables came from governments. The amount of support for renewables is lower than the amount of support for fossil fuels, and building renewables comes at much lesser cost to the environment than building fossil fuels. In France, the PPE3 proposal plans for €3 billion of that per year.

    Summary:

    Only a minority of funding for renewables comes from the government. For example, as Science Feedback has covered, it’s estimated that the French energy sector will need €17 billion of investment per year by 2030; a proposal (which, as of this writing, has not been voted upon or approved) calls for €3 billion of that per year to come from the government.

    Numbers in the billions only reflect the size of the world’s energy sector. Between 2015 and 2022, total global investment in fossil fuels ranged from US$800 billion to 1.2 trillion per year. Over the same time period, total global investment in renewables ranged from US$200 billion to 500 billion per year, with about a third coming from public financing. 

    In fact, estimates suggest that governments spend at least US$500 billion per year subsidizing fossil fuels. (France has spent about €10 billion to 15 billion per year in recent years.)

    In that context, the amount of government support for renewables may not seem as massive. Far from being propped up by government support, solar panels and wind turbines have gained traction precisely because they’re now cheaper to build than fossil fuel power plants.

    Read more in these articles:

    Narrative 04 (Unsupported):

    Variable renewables cause blackouts and compromise the security of the electricity supply.

    Takeaway:

    There’s no evidence that adding solar and wind to the grid causes blackouts. We do need to adapt the grid to handle solar and wind, but electrical engineers are well aware of this problem and know how to address it.

    Summary:

    There’s no consistent evidence that more solar and wind make blackouts more likely. When grids properly add solar panels and wind turbines to their network, they don’t increase the risk of a blackout [1]. For example, in 2024, California’s electric grid ran entirely on solar, wind, and hydro for parts of more than 90 days, and suffered no blackouts [2].

    It is true that solar panels and wind turbines aren’t like other power sources. Instead of one central power plant, solar and wind generate the same amount of electricity with many smaller decentralized sources; they generate direct current (DC), as opposed to the alternating current (AC) that’s standard for the grid. Adding solar and wind to the grid needs special adjustments and equipment like inverters. However, as we’ve said, engineers and grid operators are well aware of this, and the adjustments are standard practice.

    People are often quick to blame renewables for blackouts – in Spain earlier this year, for example – but it’s misleading to blame a blackout on any single cause. Electrical grids are quite complex, and a well-designed grid has numerous systems intended to prevent failure. If a blackout does happen, it usually means that multiple things have gone wrong.

    Read more in these articles:

    References:

    1. Zhao et al. (2024) Impacts of renewable energy resources on the weather vulnerability of power systems. Nature Energy.
    2. Jacobson et al. (2025) No blackouts or cost increases due to 100 % clean, renewable electricity powering California for parts of 98 days. Renewable Energy.

    Narrative 05 (Inaccurate):

    In France, nuclear power production is sufficient to meet energy needs and, thanks to it, the electricity and/or energy mix is already carbon-free.

    Takeaway:

    Nuclear power is a source of low-carbon electricity, but it is not the only source of clean electricity – renewables like solar and wind are just as low-carbon. While France has relatively very clean electricity thanks to its fleet of nuclear power plants, electricity isn’t the only form of energy. Due to vehicle fuels and home heating, fossil fuels still account for more than 60% of France’s energy consumption.

    Summary:

    Nuclear power is low-carbon (though it’s not renewable, as it relies on a limited supply of fuel). Nuclear plants emit very little greenhouse gas compared to fossil fuels – gas is responsible for 60 to 100 times higher emissions, and coal 120 to 210 times, according to UNECE data. France generates more than two-thirds of its electricity from nuclear, so this source is not sufficient to meet all electricity needs.

    Moreover, electricity is only part of a country’s total energy mix. When we include other sorts of energy like petroleum for vehicle fuel and gas for heating, about 60% of France’s energy consumption still comes from greenhouse-gas-generating fossil fuels. Decarbonization also means reducing fossil fuel use, and therefore emissions, in these areas. In France in 2023, 269 million tons of CO2e (a unit measuring the global warming potential of all greenhouse gases) were emitted from fossil fuel combustion, according to the International Energy Agency. This represents nearly three-quarters of the greenhouse gas emissions recorded in France. 

    The government’s strategy for 2050 aims to reduce final energy consumption but increase the share of electricity in the energy consumed. As a consequence, all prospective scenarios include a significant deployment of renewable energies. Some are planning a complete phase-out of nuclear power, while others are proposing the development of new nuclear power plants.

    The IPCC’s scenarios often show that the share of electricity in total energy use increases over time. Therefore, even if today’s low-carbon supply is “enough” for current demand, much more clean electricity will be needed in the future to replace fossil fuels elsewhere in the economy. Additional renewables (or other low-carbon sources like nuclear) remain one of the most climate-friendly options to meet this growing demand, even if current demand is met.

    Read more in these articles:

      References:

      1. IPCC (2022) Chapter 6: Energy systems. In: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change.

      Narrative 06 (Unsupported):

      The environmental impact of wind turbines is negative and they are disastrous for biodiversity (birds) and human health (diseases).

      Takeaway:

      The evidence doesn’t suggest that wind turbines can be characterized as ‘disastrous’. In fact, their impacts on the environment and human health are very small compared to those from fossil fuel power plants.

      Summary:

      Wind energy’s material footprint is relatively small. About 90% of a turbine’s mass can be recycled today[1]. Even if the rest can’t be recycled, wind turbines’ total mass estimated to go to waste by 2050 is less than the amount of waste ash that the world’s coal power plants currently produce in a single year[2,3].

      While wind turbines do affect surrounding wildlife, the data doesn’t suggest they are more harmful to wildlife than other human activities. Offshore turbines are no louder than passing ships or heavy winds[4], except during the installation phase. In the air, U.S. estimates suggest that the number of birds killed by wind turbines is a tiny fraction of the number of birds individually killed by cars, feral cats, building windows, or fossil fuel power plants[5].

      Moreover, there’s no evidence that wind turbines’ sound waves harm humans, and research suggests that their electromagnetic field is comparable to that from household appliances[6], well within safety guidelines. Meanwhile, the air pollution from fossil fuel power plants is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths each year[7].

      It’s only meaningful to compare wind energy’s footprint to other energy sources – and data shows that their footprint is far lower than fossil fuels’.

      Read more in these articles:

      References:

      1. Spini and Bettini (2024). End-of-Life wind turbine blades: Review on recycling strategies. Composites Part B: Engineering. 
      2. Liu and Barlow (2017). Wind turbine blade waste in 2050. Waste Management.
      3. Mirletz et al (2023). Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic module toxicity and waste are slowing decarbonization. Nature Physics.
      4. Tougaard et al. (2020) How loud is the underwater noise from operating offshore wind turbines? The Journal of the Acoustic Society of America.
      5. Loss et al. (2015) Direct Mortality of Birds from Anthropogenic Causes. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics.
      6. Knopper et al. (2014) Wind Turbines and Human Health. Frontiers in Public Health.
      7. Markandya and Wilkinson (2007) Electricity generation and health. The Lancet.

      Narrative 07 (Lacks context):

      France is one of the lowest greenhouse gas emitters in the world 

      Takeaway:

      Both overall and per person (per capita), France emits significantly less greenhouse gases than large emitters like the U.S. or China. But France is certainly not the lowest emitter in the world. Overall, France ranks around 20th in the world for greenhouse gas emissions, with roughly 180 countries emitting less than them. France’s relatively lower per capita emissions are largely thanks to significant use of nuclear energy.

      Summary:

      While it is true that France emits significantly less greenhouse gases than the largest emitters like the U.S. or China, France is not one of the lowest emitters in the world. France ranks around 20th in the world (varying by year) for annual greenhouse gas emissions; there are roughly 180 countries who emit less than France. 

      France’s relatively low emissions compared to top emitting countries are thanks to a larger share of France’s energy coming from nuclear, rather than fossil fuels (which emit far more greenhouse gas). In 2024, 44% of France’s total energy supply came from nuclear; in the same year, that share in the U.S. was only 9.8%, and in China, 3%. Instead, the U.S. and China rely mainly on fossil fuels for energy. 

      But France’s emissions are far from zero (369 millions of tonnes of CO2e), with roughly 41.8% of its total energy supply coming from fossil fuels. Every tonne of greenhouse gas added to our atmosphere contributes to global warming – it doesn’t matter which country emits it, nor their ‘emissions rank’. Additionally, all countries emitting less than 2% of global emissions (France included) represent 37.6% of the total – far from negligible. 

      Read more in these articles:

      Narrative 08 (Inaccurate):

      Reducing France’s greenhouse gas emissions has no impact on the overall climate if other countries don’t do the same.

      Takeaway:

      Reducing emissions in any country can help lower the total input of greenhouse gases to our atmosphere – our atmosphere doesn’t respond differently to one country’s emissions cuts over another. All countries emitting less than 2% of global emissions (France included) represent 37.6% of the total; so, even small emitters, like France, can help cut total emissions. 

      Summary:

      Focusing only on countries with the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions is misleading as it implies that only top emitters can make an impact. In reality, Earth’s atmosphere doesn’t ‘care’ where emissions come from – it is the total greenhouse gas accumulation in our atmosphere that matters for global warming[1,2]. 

      While reducing emissions indeed requires a global effort, France can make an impact by reducing its contribution to the world’s total emissions. In 2023, France accounted for 0.73% of global greenhouse gas emissions. And if we take into account emissions from imported goods, France’s carbon footprint represents 1.6% of GHG emissions caused by human activities. While this is significantly less than large emitters like the U.S. or China[3], reductions from many smaller emitters can add up. Combined, all countries emitting less than 2% of global emissions represent 37.6% of the total.

      France reducing its emissions does not imply the country is ‘solely responsible’ for fixing climate change. Instead, it shows that the country is contributing to – what is necessarily – a global effort. Both large and small emitters play a role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

      Read more in these articles:

      References:

      Narrative 09 (Inaccurate):

      Low-emissions zones have no notable environmental effect and don’t reduce greenhouse gas emissions

      Takeaway:

      Low-emissions zones have reduced their cities’ levels of air pollution by discouraging or prohibiting certain vehicles from entering certain zones. These air pollution decreases have led to observed health improvements, like reduced cases of respiratory illness. LEZs implementation does not aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

      Summary:

      When cities discourage or prohibit certain vehicles from entering certain zones, they’re usually trying to cut down on cars’ air pollution that directly impact the health of those who live and work in these zones. So, are these low-emissions zones (LEZs) successful?

      The answer is yes, according to independent studies of LEZs. Studies from cities like Lisbon[1], London[2], and Madrid[3] have found that an LEZ reduced its respective city’s levels of nitrous oxide and fine particulates (PM), both of which are common air pollutants. The result? Clearly observed health improvements [4], such as reduced cases of respiratory illness in London[2] and better cardiovascular health in German cities with LEZs. LEZs don’t erase air pollution entirely, but they do lead to notable improvements on the local level.

      LEZs are local policies intended to reduce local pollution, not to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. People claiming that LEZs don’t reduce greenhouse gas emissions use misleading language. However, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) notes that LEZs encourage motorists to drive cleaner cars, like electric vehicles, which can ultimately reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. 

      Read more in these articles:

      References:

      Narrative 10 (Misleading):

      Combustion vehicles aren’t an environmental problem, especially if they are fuelled by ethanol or diesel or if they are new. 

      Takeaway:

      Although gasoline cars have become lower-emissions over time, regarding both CO2 and other air pollutants, their emissions are usually still higher than EVs. Diesel cars haven’t seen the same emissions reductions, and new diesel cars now have higher emissions than comparable gasoline cars. Ethanol is less polluting than gasoline or diesel, but many scientists are concerned about land use from ethanol production (from crop vegetables), making this fuel problematic for the environment.

      Summary:

      Gasoline car emissions have decreased over time, thanks in part to stricter government standards. The average U.S. gasoline car’s tailpipe emits 24% less CO2 on the road in 2025 than in 2000, 85% less carbon monoxide (CO), and 94% less nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide (NOx). 

      Many diesel cars had lower emissions than their gasoline equivalents several decades ago, but they haven’t seen the same emissions reductions. Some new diesel cars have higher CO and NOx emissions and CO2 emissions than new gasoline cars.

      There’s evidence that blending ethanol with gasoline reduces CO and NOx emissions[1]. Ethanol emits less CO2 than gasoline or diesel, though exact numbers depend on the plants used to produce it. But there are serious questions about ethanol’s sustainability – ethanol is made from crops that use loads of land, and there’s some evidence this results in land-use-change emissions that cancel out any savings from gasoline[2].

      EVs don’t emit CO or NOx from the tailpipe while on the road at all. Even accounting for the lifecycle CO2 emissions accumulated while manufacturing cars or while generating their electricity, an EV has lower emissions than a combustion car in most cases[3,4]. Electricity and EVs are far less land-intensive than ethanol.

      Read more in these articles:

      References:

      1. Rosdi et al. (2025) Evaluation of engine performance and emissions using blends of gasoline, ethanol, and fusel oil. Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering.
      2. Lark et al. (2021) Environmental outcomes of the US Renewable Fuel Standard. PNAS.
      3. Knobloch et al. (2020) Net emission reductions from electric cars and heat pumps in 59 world regions over time. Nature Sustainability.
      4. Sacchi et al. (2022) When, where and how can the electrification of passenger cars reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews.

      Narrative 11 (Misleading):

      The climate has always fluctuated in a natural fashion; the same is true today, and there’s no reason to worry about it.

      Takeaway:

      Evidence shows that recent climate changes are driven by human activity – not natural factors – and are resulting in a rise in certain extreme weather events, especially extreme heat, which can negatively impact humans. Climate conditions – and their fluctuations – in Earth’s deeper past are not necessarily the ideal conditions for humans to thrive in (Earth’s ice ages were ‘natural fluctuations’, for example).

      Summary:

      Scientific evidence clearly shows that recent climate change is being driven by emissions of greenhouse gases – primarily carbon dioxide (CO2) – from human activities[1]. These greenhouse gases trap heat on Earth and warm the planet. 

      Earth’s climate does naturally fluctuate, because of volcanic, solar activity, and Earth orbit variations. But scientists explain that natural fluctuations cannot explain current changes. 

      One way they discovered this was by modelling how different factors could reproduce temperatures that we’ve observed in recent history. In their simulations, scientists found that natural variables (solar and volcanic) alone were unable to match observed global temperature trends over the period of 1850-2020[1]. The models could only achieve a close match when human factors, like CO2 emissions, were included. These observations rule out the idea that fluctuations are due to natural factors alone, and it solidifies human influence. 

      Regarding claims of ‘not needing to worry’ about these changes: climate experts would disagree. Natural fluctuations and climate conditions of Earth’s deeper past aren’t necessarily ideal for human life (e.g., harsh ice ages). Climate change has several impacts that affect human life: lower crop yields, higher human death because of hot temperatures, more frequent and severe extreme weather events[1], etc. Scientists expect this to worsen in the future. 

      Read more in these articles:

      References:

      1. IPCC (2023) Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report.

      Narrative 12 (Inaccurate):

      Climate policies are adopted without any preliminary study and without knowing the impact that they could have.

      Takeaway:

      Preliminary studies are common practice for many climate policies. These studies help planners understand a policy’s impacts, benefits, and drawbacks before it is implemented. Independent think tanks and academic researchers are also very active in simulating things like renewable energy.

      Summary:

      It’s common practice to study the impacts of a climate policy before implementing it. For example, London only launched its Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) after a detailed assessment that predicted its effects on numerous factors ranging from air quality to the economy. Other cities like Paris, Madrid, and Barcelona conducted similar assessments when they launched or expanded their low-emission zones.

      These are often backed by the government proposing them; for example, when the European Green Deal was first proposed in 2019, researchers associated with the European Commission studied how the Green Deal’s goals could be achieved. But many independent researchers analyzed the Green Deal and its feasibility before any of its planks entered official policy.

      Likewise, researchers often study policies still years in the future. For example, many engineers have modelled (example) how electrical grids running entirely on renewable energy would operate. By doing so, they can inform future decision-makers.

      Predictive studies are not perfect, and not all policies are equally studied, but we have other ways of understanding a policy’s impact[1]. As more climate policies play out in the real world, our knowledge of them improves, as we understand which policies have been more successful than others[2].

      Read more in these articles:

      References:

      1. Callaghan et al. (2025) Machine learning map of climate policy literature reveals disparities between scientific attention, policy density, and emissions. NPJ Climate Action.
      2. Stechemesser et al. (2024) Climate policies that achieved major emission reductions: Global evidence from two decades. Science.

      Narrative 13 (Inaccurate):

      Electric vehicles pollute more than petrol vehicles or hybrids.

      Takeaway:

      Across its entire life, a petrol vehicle is almost always responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than a comparable electric vehicle. While electric vehicle batteries do include ecologically sensitive metals like lithium and nickel, experts don’t think their impacts outweigh those from the petroleum needed to power a combustion vehicle.

      Summary:

      When we look at greenhouse gas emissions from across a car’s entire life – from raw materials to retirement – we find that a combustion vehicle* (ICEV) almost always has higher emissions than a similarly sized electric vehicle (EV). Although the EV may be more emissions-intensive to manufacture than the ICEV, the EV will more than make up that difference on the road, since it doesn’t rely on petroleum to operate. 

      Multiple studies have shown that EVs are less emissions-intensive than their ICEV counterparts in most of the world; another study has shown that EVs have a similar advantage over hybrids too [1-3]. This is particularly true in France thanks to its largely decarbonized electricity production.

      What about other forms of pollution? Due to its battery, an EV does contain more sensitive metals like lithium, nickel, and rare earths than an equivalent ICEV. However, a typical EV will only use a few kilograms of each, once, when it’s manufactured. 

      Meanwhile, nearly all ICEVs continually rely on petroleum over their entire lifetimes. Every step of petroleum’s lifecycle, from the oil well to the engine, damages both the environment and human health. It’s difficult to directly compare the footprints of battery metals and petroleum, but experts generally don’t think EVs’ environmental costs outweigh the benefits of moving away from oil.

      *Note: in this summary, ‘vehicle’ refers to a ‘car’ (passenger vehicle). 

      Read more in these articles:

      References:

      Narrative 14 (Unsupported):

      Scientific data on the magnitude of climate change is falsified and exaggerated by scientists, NGOs, and institutions, with the goal of manipulating public opinion and serving their personal interests.

      Takeaway:

      There is no evidence of mass ‘data falsification’ and ‘fraud’ in climate science – claims to the contrary rely on conspiracy theories, not evidence. Leading climate reports – like the most recent IPCC Sixth Assessment Report – are rigorously checked by hundreds of scientific experts around the world and transparently assign confidence levels to their findings.

      Summary:

      Claims of ‘mass fraud’ in climate science rely on conspiracy theories, not evidence. Scientists around the world independently conduct research into Earth’s climate. When their key findings agree across studies, this strengthens their conclusions – it doesn’t prove scientists are ‘conspiring’. 

      Leading climate organizations, like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), transparently explain their processes. The 2021 IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, for example, is a summary of findings from scientists’ assessments of thousands of scientific papers. These assessment reports are rigorously reviewed by hundreds of experts around the world. The IPCC is transparent about confidence levels for different findings and its authors are the first to explain their uncertainties.

      The procedures above show why these reports aren’t just ‘following a narrative’; the urgency and magnitude of climate change outlined in these reports stems from expert review of an extensive body of scientific evidence. 

      On a smaller scale, individual scientific papers are also reviewed by fellow experts in a process called ‘peer review’. Despite the thousands of peer-reviewed papers and several large climate reports published over the years, conspiracy theorists have yet to present any credible evidence of ‘mass fraud’. 

      Read more in these articles:

      Narrative 15 (Incorrect):

      The human origin of global warming is uncertain or insignificant

      Takeaway:

      In climate reports, scientists assign confidence levels to different findings based on the strength and certainty of the supporting evidence. The world’s leading climate report describes human contribution to recent global warming as unequivocal – a word reserved for when evidence leaves virtually zero doubt. Specifically, evidence shows that humans have caused almost all of the warming since 1950. 

      Summary:

      It’s a well-established fact that greenhouse gases cause the Earth to warm by trapping heat on our planet[1-3]. Human activities – like burning fossil fuels – emit these greenhouse gases in large quantities across the globe, causing them to accumulate in our atmosphere over time. 

      The world’s leading climate report describes human contribution to recent global warming (since ~1850) as unequivocal – a word scientists reserve for when evidence leaves virtually zero doubt. In this case, evidence shows that humans have warmed Earth’s atmosphere, land, and oceans for almost two centuries[3]. And more recently (since 1950), humans have not only contributed to this warming, but driven it[3]. 

      There are many lines of evidence that point towards these conclusions; one of the strongest is what climate models show if human factors are excluded. In short, when scientists only include natural factors (like volcanic and solar activity), models show that Earth would have cooled in recent decades. But when human factors (like greenhouse gas emissions) are included, the models closely match the temperature trends of the recent past.

      For more evidence, see the IPCC Climate Change 2023 report here (Section 2.1). 

      Read more in these articles:

      References:

      Narrative 16 (Lacks context):

      Air conditioning has no negative impact on climate change; it is a good adaptation solution.

      Takeaway:

      Air conditioning has great benefits in the face of hot weather, but it’s not a solution without consequences. Air conditioning can effectively reduce deaths from extreme heat, but it also dramatically increases energy use and can lead to local heating.

      Summary:

      Air conditioning can certainly keep humans healthier and more comfortable when the weather is hot. It’s estimated that air conditioning prevented about 200,000 premature deaths in 2019 alone [1]; air conditioning improves students’ exam performance [2] and increases office workers’ productivity [3].

      However, air conditioning isn’t a solution without negative consequences. For one, it’s energy-intensive – it uses about 7% of the world’s electricity alone, and as more people in hot climates install their first air conditioners, cooling is the fastest-growing use of energy in buildings. For another, as air conditioners cool building interiors, they warm up the air outside and contribute to the urban heat island effect. In tropical Singapore, for instance, air conditioners alone warm the air by up to 1.4°C (2.5°F)[4]. This can cause a feedback effect as air conditioners must use even more energy to maintain a stable temperature.

      Furthermore, many of today’s air conditioners contain potent greenhouse gases called hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). If HFCs leak into the atmosphere, they can cause 150 to 5,000 times more warming than the same amount of CO2 (depending on the HFC). That said, most countries have pledged to phase out HFCs, so future air conditioners may not have this issue.

      Read more in these articles:

      References:

      1. Romanello et al. (2021) The 2021 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: code red for a healthy future. The Lancet.
      2. Park et al. (2020) Heat and Learning. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy.
      3. Phelan et al. (2024) The value of air conditioning. Frontiers in Energy Efficiency.
      4. Singh et al. (2022) Numerical analysis of the impact of anthropogenic emissions on the urban environment of Singapore. Science of the Total Environment.

      In other cities, under some conditions, the increase can be as drastic as 2.5°C (4.5°F). 

      Narrative 17 (Unsupported):

      The solutions for decarbonizing the economy are driven by financial interests, not goals to reduce climate impacts

      Takeaway:

      We know that the greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels change the climate, but we also know that reducing the emissions from our energy sources can reduce the future impacts of climate change. Furthermore, renewable energy is now cheaper to generate than other sources of electricity.

      Summary:

      Climate scientists have concluded that burning fossil fuels produces greenhouse gases that warm Earth’s climate, causing sea levels to rise, making weather more extreme, and damaging ecosystems all over the planet[1]. This agreement isn’t due to a conspiracy, but rather because decades of science-based evidence have convincingly demonstrated this beyond any doubt[1].

      The evidence also shows that, since energy is the largest source of CO2 emissions, reducing energy-related emissions will help reduce global greenhouse gas emissions[2]. We know an energy transition can do this – for example, there’s clear evidence that building renewable electricity reduces a country’s greenhouse gas emissions[3,4]. So, supporting decarbonization can reduce our harms to the environment and the future harms caused by the environment on humans.

      There are other benefits, too – if you want to generate more electricity, it’s now generally cheaper to build new renewables than other power sources.

      This claim also fails to mention the powerful forces fighting against decarbonization, all over the world: fossil fuel interests, who fund anti-renewables campaigns and lobby governments across the world to fight policies that reduce the globe’s reliance on fossil fuels. 

      Read more in these articles:

      References:

      1. Mirziyoyeva & Salahodjaev (2022). Renewable energy and CO2 emissions intensity in the top carbon intense countries. Renewable Energy.
      2. IPCC (2023) Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report.
      3. IPCC (2022) Chapter 6: Energy systems. In: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change.
      4. Szetela et al. (2022) Renewable Energy and CO2 Emissions in Top Natural Resource Rents Depending Countries: The Role of Governance. Frontiers in Energy Research.

      Narrative 18 (Misleading):

      We are led to believe that there’s a consensus on climate change. This is false because some scientists disagree, and we are forbidden from debating it.

      Takeaway:

      Consensus arises when an overwhelming majority of scientists draw the same or similar conclusions when looking at scientific evidence. Nearly all (97-99%) climate scientists agree that Earth’s climate is changing, warming for several decades due to human greenhouse gas emissions. Only an extremely small minority of scientists ‘disagree’, but they have offered no credible scientific counter evidence.

      Summary:

      Several independent studies have found that roughly 97-99% of climate scientists agree that climate change is happening and, in recent decades, has been driven by greenhouse gas emissions from human activities[1,2]. This is a key finding in all IPCC Assessment reports, from the first one in 1990 to the most recent IPCC Assessment Report, written and reviewed by hundreds of experts who looked at findings from thousands of scientific papers. 

      Even with this broad agreement and decades of evidence, consensus does not mean that ‘climate science is settled’, as people will sometimes claim. Climate science – like any science – continues to be tested using the scientific method. Scientists don’t just ‘hang up their hats’ – they continue studying the climate to understand how it is changing. But when scientific evidence continues stacking up over many decades, all pointing to the same conclusion, scientists become more and more confident of that conclusion. This is how a scientific consensus forms – by strong evidence, not by an ‘agreement’ between people.

      Contrary to what some people claim, scientists are not forbidden from debating about climate change. They are free to do so. Despite this, no credible/scientific body of evidence has been presented that overturns the overwhelming consensus that humans are changing Earth’s climate. 

      Read more in these articles:

      References:

      Narrative 19 (Incorrect):

      Agriculture and livestock farming are harmless or even good for the environment (grasslands are carbon sinks).

      Takeaway:

      There is clear evidence of agriculture and livestock farming practices harming the environment. Evidence shows that climate warming from managed grasslands cancels out the cooling effect of the carbon stored by natural or sparsely-grazed grasslands. And the roughly 1.5 billion cows/cattle that humans raise emit over 100 million metric tonnes of methane – a potent planet-warming greenhouse gas – each year. Several farming practices are also tied to deforestation and land degradation. 

      Summary:

      Agricultural and livestock farming practices impact the environment in a number of ways – both directly through land degradation and deforestation, and over time through emissions of planet-warming greenhouse gases. 

      Unlike burning fossil fuels – which only emits greenhouse gas, and does not store or remove it – agricultural practices involve biological systems, like grasslands, that do both. For example, there are over 1.5 billion cattle on Earth which together emit 100 million metric tonnes of methane – a potent planet-warming greenhouse gas – each year. 

      Grasslands can also help capture and store carbon, helping remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from our atmosphere. However, in a 2021 paper, scientists analyzed grasslands emissions and found that, for the period of 1750-2012, climate warming from managed grasslands canceled out the cooling effect of the carbon stored by natural or sparsely-grazed grasslands. 

      Although suitably designed pasture systems have a lower impact on Earth’s climate than factory farms when farming cattle, for example, some pastures are worse because of land use practices (e.g., deforestation and land degradation). Finally, most livestock aren’t raised on grasslands/pastures; global estimates tell us that roughly 74% of the world’s livestock are raised on factory farms.

      Read more in these articles:

      IFCN Signatory Badge

      Science Feedback is a non-partisan, non-profit organization dedicated to science education. Our reviews are crowdsourced directly from a community of scientists with relevant expertise. We strive to explain whether and why information is or is not consistent with the science and to help readers know which news to trust.
      Please get in touch if you have any comment or think there is an important claim or article that would need to be reviewed.

      Get in touch

      Tags:

      Published on:

      Editor:

      Emmanuel Vincent

      Charles Terroille

      Anaïs Maréchal

      Rahul Rao

      Darrik Burns

      Related Articles