Perspective | Published:

Evidence-based strategies to combat scientific misinformation

Nature Climate Change (2019) | Download Citation


Nowhere has the impact of scientific misinformation been more profound than on the issue of climate change in the United States. Effective responses to this multifaceted problem have been slow to develop, in large part because many experts have not only underestimated its impact, but have also overlooked the underlying institutional structure, organizational power and financial roots of misinformation. Fortunately, a growing body of sophisticated research has emerged that can help us to better understand these dynamics and provide the basis for developing a coordinated set of strategies across four related areas (public inoculation, legal strategies, political mechanisms and financial transparency) to thwart large-scale misinformation campaigns before they begin, or after they have taken root.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.


  1. 1.

    Weiss, R. Nip misinformation in the bud. Science 358, 427 (2017).

  2. 2.

    Betsch, C. Advocating for vaccination in a climate of science denial. Nat. Microbiol. 2, 17106 (2017).

  3. 3.

    Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N. & Cook, J. Misinformation and its correction: continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 13, 106–131 (2012).

  4. 4.

    Waldman, S. & Heikkinen, N. Smith pitched Pruitt on ‘secret science.’ Now it’s happening. E&E News (20 April 2018);

  5. 5.

    A Proposed Rule by the Environmental Protection Agency: Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science (EPA, 2018);

  6. 6.

    Milloy, S. J. Scare Pollution: Why and How to Fix the EPA (Bench Press, 2016).

  7. 7.

    Huelskamp, T. et al. Heartland Institute Applauds End of ‘Secret Science’ at EPA (Heartland Institute, 2018);

  8. 8.

    Bravender, R. Pruitt to unveil ‘secret science’ effort today – sources. E&E News (24 April 2018);

  9. 9.

    Kormann, C. Scott Pruitt’s crusade against “secret science” could be disastrous for public health. The New Yorker (26 April 2018).

  10. 10.

    Smith, L. Honest and open new EPA science treatment act of 2017 (2017);

  11. 11.

    Rep. Lamar Smith—Texas District 21 (OpenSecrets, accessed 12 October 2018);

  12. 12.

    O’Harrow Jr., R. A two-decade lobbying crusade by tax-exempt conservative charities fueled Trump’s exit from the Paris Climate Accord. The Washington Post (5 September 2017).

  13. 13.

    Brulle, R. J. Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of US climate change counter-movement organizations. Climatic Change 122, 681–694 (2014).

  14. 14.

    Dunlap, R. E. & McCright, A. M. in The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society Ch. 10 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2011).

  15. 15.

    Farrell, J. Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 92–97 (2016).

  16. 16.

    Farrell, J. Network structure and influence of the climate change counter-movement. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 370–374 (2016).

  17. 17.

    Supran, G. & Oreskes, N. Assessing ExxonMobil’s climate change communications (1977–2014). Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 084019 (2017).

  18. 18.

    Boussalis, C. & Coan, T. G. Text-mining the signals of climate change doubt. Glob. Environ. Change 36, 89–100 (2016).

  19. 19.

    Oreskes, N. & Conway, E. M. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming (Bloomsbury Publishing, New York, 2010).

  20. 20.

    Cranor, C. F. The tobacco strategy entrenched. Science 321, 1296–1297 (2008).

  21. 21.

    Proctor, R. & Schiebinger, L. L. Agnotology: The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance (Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, 2008).

  22. 22.

    McGarity, T. O. Freedom to Harm: The Lasting Legacy of the Laissez Faire Revival (Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, 2013).

  23. 23.

    Diethelm, P. & McKee, M. Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond? Eur. J. Public Health 19, 2–4 (2009).

  24. 24.

    Björnberg, K. E., Karlsson, M., Gilek, M. & Hansson, S. O. Climate and environmental science denial: a review of the scientific literature published in 1990–2015. J. Clean. Prod. 167, 229–241 (2017).

  25. 25.

    Walker, E. T. Grassroots for Hire: Public Affairs Consultants in American Democracy (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2014).

  26. 26.

    Aronczyk, M. Public relations, issue management, and the transformation of american environmentalism, 1948–1992. Enterp. Soc. 19, 836–863 (2018).

  27. 27.

    Boykoff, M. T. Who Speaks for the Climate?: Making Sense of Media Reporting on Climate Change (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2011).

  28. 28.

    Del Vicario, M. et al. The spreading of misinformation online. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 554–559 (2016).

  29. 29.

    Goldman, G. T. et al. Ensuring scientific integrity in the Age of Trump. Science 355, 696–698 (2017).

  30. 30.

    McCright, A. M., Charters, M., Dentzman, K. & Dietz, T. Examining the effectiveness of climate change frames in the face of a climate change denial counter-frame. Top. Cogn. Sci. 8, 76–97 (2016).

  31. 31.

    Kahan, D. M. Climate-science communication and the measurement problem. Polit. Psychol. 36, 1–43 (2015).

  32. 32.

    Cook, J. et al. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024 (2013).

  33. 33.

    Kahan, D. M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, 147–174 (2011).

  34. 34.

    Gauchat, G. & Andrews, K. T. The cultural-cognitive mapping of scientific professions. Am. Sociol. Rev. 83, 567–595 (2018).

  35. 35.

    Jasanoff, S. A new climate for society. Theory Cult. Soc. 27, 233–253 (2010).

  36. 36.

    Landrum, A. R., Hallman, W. K. & Jamieson, K. H. Examining the impact of expert voices: communicating the scientific consensus on genetically-modified organisms. Environ. Commun. (2018).

  37. 37.

    Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H. & Cook, J. Beyond misinformation: understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 6, 353–369 (2017).

  38. 38.

    Pasek, J. It’s not my consensus: motivated reasoning and the sources of scientific illiteracy. Publ. Underst. Sci. 27, 787–806 (2018).

  39. 39.

    Gauchat, G., O’Brien, T. & Mirosa, O. The legitimacy of environmental scientists in the public sphere. Climatic Change 143, 297–306 (2017).

  40. 40.

    Brewer, P. R. & Ley, B. L. Whose science do you believe? Explaining trust in sources of scientific information about the environment. Sci. Commun. 35, 115–137 (2013).

  41. 41.

    Hamilton, L. C., Hartter, J., Lemcke-Stampone, M., Moore, D. W. & Safford, T. G. Tracking public beliefs about anthropogenic climate change. PLoS ONE 10, e0138208 (2015).

  42. 42.

    van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., Rosenthal, S. & Maibach, E. Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change. Glob. Chall. 1, 1600008 (2017).

  43. 43.

    Cook, J., Lewandowsky, S. & Ecker, U. K. H. Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence. PLoS ONE 12, e0175799 (2017).

  44. 44.

    Cook, J., Bedford, D. & Mandia, S. Raising climate literacy through addressing misinformation: case studies in agnotology-based learning. J. Geosci. Educ. 62, 296–306 (2014).

  45. 45.

    Douglas, P. & Hescox, M. Caring for Creation: The Evangelical’s Guide to Climate Change and a Healthy Environment (Bethany House Publishers, Bloomington, 2016).

  46. 46.

    Goldenberg, S. American Tradition Institute’s fight against ‘environmental junk science’. Guardian (9 May 2012);

  47. 47.

    Cann, H. W. & Raymond, L. Does climate denialism still matter? The prevalence of alternative frames in opposition to climate policy. Environ. Polit. 27, 433–454 (2018).

  48. 48.

    Climate Science Legal Defense Fund (accessed 13 October 2018);

  49. 49.

    Diani, M. & MacAdam, D. Social Movements and Networks: Relational Approaches to Collective Action (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 2003).

  50. 50.

    DiMaggio, P. J. & Powell, W. W. in The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (eds DiMaggio, P. J. & Powell, W. W.) 1–40 (Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, 1991).

  51. 51.

    Scott, W. R. Institutions and Organizations (SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, 2001).

  52. 52.

    Jasny, L., Waggle, J. & Fisher, D. R. An empirical examination of echo chambers in US climate policy networks. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 782–786 (2015).

  53. 53.

    Parentau, E. Entergy completes internal investigation regarding New Orleans power station advocacy. Entergy Newsroom (10 May 2018);

  54. 54.

    Stein, M. I. Actors were paid to support Entergy’s power plant at New Orleans City Council meetings. The Lens (4 May 2018);

  55. 55.

    Magnan, A. Refeudalizing the public sphere: ‘manipulated publicity’ in the Canadian debate on GM foods. Can. J. Sociol. 31, 25–53 (2006).

  56. 56.

    Barley, S. R. Building an institutional field to corral a government: a case to set an agenda for organization Studies. Organ. Stud. 31, 777–805 (2010).

  57. 57.

    Schlichting, I. Consumer campaigns in corporate public affairs management: the case of climate change and the German energy industry. J. Commun. Manag. 18, 402–421 (2014).

  58. 58.

    Smith, K. T., Smith, L. M. & Dunbar, S. Using corporate advertising to improve public perception of energy companies. J. Strateg. Mark. 22, 347–356 (2014).

  59. 59.

    Vaughan, A. World Council of Churches rules out fossil fuel investments. Guardian (11 July 2014);

  60. 60.

    Divestment Commitments (Fossil Free, accessed 13 October 2018);

  61. 61.

    Caldecott, B. Introduction to special issue: stranded assets and the environment. J. Sustain. Finan. Invest. 7, 1–13 (2017).

  62. 62.

    Mayor, Comptroller, Trustees Announce First-In-The-Nation Goal to Divest From Fossil Fuels (City of New York Press Office, 2018);

  63. 63.

    Frondel, M., Simora, M. & Sommer, S. Risk perception of climate change: empirical evidence for Germany. Ecol. Econ. 137, 173–183 (2017).

  64. 64.

    van der Linden, S. The social-psychological determinants of climate change risk perceptions: Towards a comprehensive model. J. Environ. Psychol. 41, 112–124 (2015).

  65. 65.

    Brulle, R. J. The climate lobby: a sectoral analysis of lobbying spending on climate change in the USA, 2000 to 2016. Climatic Change 149, 289–303 (2018).

  66. 66.

    Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. 558 US 310 (2010);

  67. 67.

    Mayer, J. Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right (Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, New York, 2016).

  68. 68.

    Lazer, D. M. J. et al. The science of fake news. Science 359, 1094–1096 (2018).

Download references

Author information


  1. Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

    • Justin Farrell
    •  & Kathryn McConnell
  2. Brown University, Institute for Environment and Society, Providence, RI, USA

    • Robert Brulle


  1. Search for Justin Farrell in:

  2. Search for Kathryn McConnell in:

  3. Search for Robert Brulle in:

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Justin Farrell.

About this article

Publication history