Introduction

The report analyses how misleading and distorted information about climate science obstructs public understanding and delays effective policy responses. Despite near-universal scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, information integrity failures widen the gap between knowledge and action, undermining trust and coordination in climate governance

Conceptualisation

Information integrity is defined through four dimensions: accuracy (alignment with climate science), consistency (stability across time and contexts), reliability (clear and credible sourcing), and transparency (traceability of information pathways). The report distinguishes legitimate scientific and democratic debate from practices that intentionally or incidentally create confusion, including misinformation, disinformation, denial, and greenwashing

Methods

The study synthesises evidence from a systematic review of 300 peer-reviewed publications published between 2015 and 2025. An initial pool of 2,276 unique studies was identified from Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed and refined using PRISMA screening and a Normalised Citation Score threshold. Supplementary reviews incorporated legal and computer science research. Qualitative analysis addressed six communication dimensions: who communicates, what is said, through which channels, to whom, with what effects, and with what potential solutions

Findings: State of research

Disruptions to information integrity primarily originate from actors with economic or political interests. Fossil fuel companies and related industries have employed denial, greenwashing, and delay strategies, including misrepresenting emissions, overstating sustainability commitments, and shifting responsibility to consumers. Comparable practices are documented in aviation, tourism, agriculture, and technology sectors.

Governments and political parties play an ambivalent role. While formally supporting international climate commitments, some states minimise urgency, weaken regulation, or promote sceptical narratives. Right-wing populist parties and individual political leaders are frequently linked to denial and response scepticism, though national patterns vary.

Interest groups, lobbies, and think tanks amplify misleading narratives, often funded through non-transparent mechanisms. Over time, conservative think tanks have shifted from outright denial towards questioning policy feasibility and attacking scientific credibility.

Media channels are central to the spread of misleading information. Right-leaning traditional media and social media platforms disproportionately amplify scepticism and conspiracy theories. Automated accounts materially affect online discourse: studies estimate 15–25% of climate-related tweets are generated by bots, contributing to polarisation and emotional amplification.

These dynamics reduce public trust in science, weaken support for climate policy, and reinforce political inaction. Research coverage is heavily skewed towards the Global North, particularly the United States, despite the Global South facing disproportionate climate impacts

Additional findings and implications

The review identifies significant gaps in scholarship, especially in Africa, parts of Asia, and comparative cross-national research. Emerging risks include the scaling effects of artificial intelligence and digital platform algorithms, which may further intensify misinformation and complicate accountability.

Conclusions

The evidence confirms that compromised information integrity is a systemic barrier to effective climate action. Four policy approaches show consistently positive outcomes: legislation mandating standardised carbon reporting and labelling; litigation to enforce compliance; coalition-building across governments, industry, and civil society; and education for policymakers and the public. Strengthening these areas is critical to restoring trust, improving policy coordination, and aligning public communication with climate science.