Misinformation and disinformation
Misinformation is inaccurate information shared regardless of intent. Disinformation involves deliberate attempts to mislead. We cannot reliably infer the motives of a person from one post, so the first task is to evaluate the claim and the evidence behind it.
Climate posts may use a correct number with a misleading headline, overstate the reach of a study or treat uncertainty as proof that scientists know nothing. UNESCO's initiative on information integrity and climate change highlights the importance of trustworthy scientific information for informed public decisions.
Weather is not the same as climate
Weather describes conditions at a particular place and time. Climate is assessed through long-term patterns and statistics. One cold day does not refute global warming; equally, one unusually hot day should not be presented as sufficient proof of global climate change on its own.
The IPCC Sixth Assessment Synthesis Report concludes that human activities have caused global warming. This assessment brings together many observations and studies over long periods. When a story relies on a single local event, ask what it can and cannot establish about the global trend.
Reading charts and numbers
Start with the horizontal axis, the vertical scale and the units. A carefully chosen start year, truncated scale, short time window or mismatched comparison can change the apparent story. A temperature anomaly is a difference relative to a reference period, not the same thing as an absolute temperature.
Check which institution produced the data, when it was updated and whether it covers a region or the globe. NASA presents several independent lines of evidence, including temperatures, ice and oceans. Even an authentic chart can be paired with a caption that makes a claim the underlying data do not support.
Checking sources, experts and context
Try to locate the research behind a news article. Does the headline match the abstract and conclusions? Is the source a peer-reviewed paper, preprint, commentary or press release? One expert's opinion should not be mistaken for the combined findings of an entire research field.
Scientific uncertainty does not mean complete ignorance. Research states its limitations and confidence in findings; IPCC assessments also describe confidence levels. For claims that contradict well-established findings, compare methods and the weight of evidence rather than treating all assertions as equally supported.
Verification on social media
Pause before reposting a striking climate claim. Search a distinctive phrase, check the publication date and investigate the original context of a photograph or video. Images of floods, fires or ice can be reused years later with a new, misleading description.
When correcting an error, link to evidence without humiliating the person who shared it. A concise explanation of what was checked is more useful than simply repeating the false claim. The United Nations climate myth-busters resource offers accessible evidence-based responses to common claims.
A seven-day practice plan
On day one, save a climate claim you encounter. On day two, find its original source and date. On day three, inspect any chart axes and time range. On day four, compare the claim with a primary source such as NASA or the IPCC.
On day five, compare two reports about the same topic. On day six, explain your checking method to someone else. On day seven, write a brief verification note: claim, evidence, context, level of confidence and unresolved questions. When evidence is insufficient, avoid a definitive verdict.
Verifiable sources
IPCC — AR6 Synthesis Report ↗NASA — Evidence of Climate Change ↗UNESCO — Information Integrity on Climate Change ↗United Nations — Climate Myth Busters ↗This is an educational media and environmental literacy resource. Check the latest source versions when evaluating new claims.
Keep exploring e-NetCoM
Environmental education, E-Centre resources and project updates
Environmental education ↗E-Merkez ↗Project ↗Instagram ↗YouTube ↗X ↗