IN THIS EDITION
ON THE RISE
Weekly Watch of Emerging Disinformation Risks
The same old story – a heat wave of climate disinformation
For a disinformation message to be impactful, it must appeal to emotions and connect to something people directly experience. It has to trigger a visceral reaction. Whether it is a heat wave, unexpected snowfall, higher bills, or a new policy report, climate disinformers have a wide range of hooks to spread misleading, inaccurate, or out-of-context claims.
The climate disinformation ecosystem is highly organized and dates back to the 1960s. It involves many actors, including fossil fuel companies, partisan think tanks, politicians, states, advertisers, influencers, online platforms and search engines.
One reason climate disinformation is so compelling is that climate science is inherently complex. Questions about the existence, causes, and solutions of climate change rely on scientific methods that can be difficult for a general audience to interpret and digest. Messages which simplify this complexity find their way, no matter if misleading (e.g. exceptional cold weather is used to deny the existence of climate change). In addition, recent years have seen a decline in trust in science and public institutions, which populist narratives often portray as detached elites acting against ordinary people.
As highlighted by Jennie King, what makes climate disinformation even more powerful, is the collision between the carbon and the attention economy. The carbon economy pushes climate disinformation to protect its business, the algorithms of the attention economy reward such misleading and inflammatory content to stimulate monetisation, hence, to increase revenues.
From old to new denialism, the aim of climate disinformation is to create a so called “white noise”. This means flooding the information space with a large amount of misleading, non-verified, incorrect content aiming at delaying climate responses, hampering trust in science, media and public institutions, and altering the debate around climate change. Above all, the ultimate aim is to create confusion.
Climate disinformation is also used for FIMI attacks. Russia, for example, has a well-developed climate disinformation strategy targeting the EU, aimed at fracturing public opinion across Europe, cultivating support among fringe groups, protecting its commercial interests, and discrediting the EU geopolitically, particularly in Africa.
Climate disinformation content detected by the EDMO network confirms what has become a trend. Extreme whether events, such as heatwaves, are regularly used to spread disinformation. Narratives are repeatedly the same: journalists and scientists are exaggerating, extreme weather events (e.g. heatwaves) have always existed and/or are natural trends, there is no correlation with CO2 increases nor to its human causes, green solutions are equally polluting, climate policies do not work. Among the most used cognitive strategies to support those messages are confusing meteorology with climatology and a misleading reading of recorded data and time spams.
Misquoting scientific reports and spreading misleading claims about the work of scientists and international organizations focused on climate change is also effective. It combines all the elements of a successful disinformation formula: a complex issue reduced to a simple and simplistic misleading message; a touch of conspiracy theory; anti-science populist framing; and cognitive tactics that make people feel being victims of the elite.
If science is under attack, scientists are as well. As it has been recently reported, climate scientists affirmed that disinformation over the recent heatwave fueled online harassment against them.
Disinformation, climate change and extreme weather events are ranked high in the last Global Risks Report of both the World Economic Forum and the last United Nations. As recalled in a recent report by the French Défense&Climate, climate disinformation delays climate action, contributes to societal polarisation, puts at risks people during extreme natural phenomena (e.g. in case of floods and droughts) and impacts national security. While humankind (and not only) is put at risk, extremist politicians cheat their voters and the global players of carbon and attention economies increase their revenues.
The Global Initiative on Information Integrity on Climate Change established by UNESCO, the Government of Brazil, and the UN is a good example of awareness and action to tackle climate disinformation. The related fund has issued the first grants, including to the European Federation of Journalists. Under the umbrella of their funded project called “Strengthening media capacities to combat climate misinformation and disinformation”, they recently organised a seminar for journalists on how to spot and fight climate disinformation. There are indeed also cases in which climate disinformation is shared through traditional media, hence a call for more training activities and independent oversight. The #climatefactsmatter campaign by the European Commission does also include a handbook on how to spot climate disinformation, drafted in collaboration with EDMO.
ZOOM-IN
A Closer Look at Cases Detected by the EDMO Network
Climate disinformation is a constant in the EDMO monthly fact-checking briefs, with peaks during extreme weather events and in conjunction with specific scientific or policy activities.
Europe’s heatwave of last week and the publication of a new scientific study revising far-end emissions scenario confirmed again this trend. The narratives are also not new: heatwaves have always existed, scientists are not reliable and are paid by public institutions to manipulate data, media are exaggerating.
The conspiracy script with the elite of scientists, public institutions and media acting against the interest of society, unfolds as usual.
The heatwave of May 2026 was truly unprecedented
Claims online suggest that France’s late‑May 2026 heatwave is nothing unusual and comparable to past warm periods, but the evidence points in the opposite direction. Experts stress that this event stands out as highly unusual, not simply because of high temperatures, but because of a rare combination of early timing, sustained intensity, and widespread records being broken at once. Comparisons with isolated hot days in decades past fail to account for these factors, which make the current episode distinct.
Driven by a “heat dome,” temperatures soared 10–15°C above seasonal averages, with records falling across large parts of the country. What makes this especially notable is that such extreme conditions occurred well before summer, reinforcing scientific warnings that climate change is making heatwaves not only stronger but also earlier in the year. Rather than media exaggeration, the data shows that the May 2026 heatwave is truly unprecedented in its characteristics
Climate consensus remains despite revisions to far-end emission scenarios
Viral claims suggest that revisions to extreme emissions scenarios prove that climate science is unreliable – but that reading doesn’t hold up. The fact‑check explains that updates to scenarios, including moving away from the most extreme pathway (RCP8.5), are being misrepresented online. These scenarios are tools used to explore possible futures, and they are regularly revised as real‑world conditions change. In this case, experts adjusted the highest‑emissions outlook because it has become less plausible (by 2100) due to renewable energy growth, climate policies and shifting trends.
Crucially, none of this undermines the broader scientific consensus. Researchers stress that the evidence linking human emissions to climate change remains strong and unchanged, and claims that the UN or IPCC admitted their projections were “wrong” are incorrect. The updates come from independent modelling groups – not the IPCC itself – and reflect refinement, not failure. In short, while the range of possible futures is being updated, the core conclusion stays the same: human activity is driving global warming, and significant risks remain. The claim that IPCC scientists are paid by the United Nations to promote extreme takes on climate change is also incorrect, as they work on voluntary basis. The paper recommending changes to climate scenarios has also been incorrectly attributed to the IPCC. According to its own statement, the IPCC does not conduct its own research, run models or make measurements.
A false claim about the alleged withdrawal of 46 researchers from the IPCC circulated online again
There is a claim, circulating in German, English, French and Dutch according to which 46 scientists resigned from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in protest against alleged manipulation of climate science. It finds this narrative to be false and recycled misinformation: there has been no such wave of resignations, and the claim is based on a misleading combination of old quotes and misinterpreted material. Some of these experts are not even in the IPCC but only expert reviewers.
In reality, the list of statements attributed to the researchers dates back to around 2013 and was never intended as evidence of people quitting the IPCC. Additionally, a chart often shared alongside these claims – purporting to show climate models are inaccurate – has been repeatedly criticised by experts as misleading. The article concludes that the story is part of recurring attempts to undermine trust in climate science by repackaging outdated information as new developments.
ELECTION BEAT
Tracking electoral disinformation through EDMO Hubs
Malta General Election 2026: A Story Worth Chasing
The fourth brief from MedDMO examines a network of suspicious websites and online activities that emerged around Malta’s 2026 general election campaign. The authors argue that what initially appeared to be suspicious, but isolated websites may instead represent a broader, coordinated effort to influence political discourse online.
The investigation identifies several domains registered shortly before or after the election was called, including sites presenting themselves as news outlets, satire platforms, fact-checking services, or political commentary portals. MedDMO notes that these sites consistently favoured the governing Labour Party and often promoted narratives critical of the opposition.
Particular attention is given to Appostli, a website and Facebook page that published politically charged content while claiming to be satire. The brief highlights evidence suggesting sophisticated local political knowledge, extensive social-media promotion, and patterns of engagement that appear artificial, including large numbers of reactions from seemingly fake accounts. The report also notes connections between Appostli and other recently registered websites through shared addresses, themes, and messaging.
While MedDMO stops short of drawing definitive conclusions, it argues that the timing, coordination, and apparent amplification tactics surrounding these sites warrant further investigation as potential information-manipulation operations during the election period.
False fraud allegations emerge as Colombia heads to presidential runoff
In its coverage of European elections, the EDMO network has documented numerous instances of attempts to undermine public trust in electoral processes. Similar developments in other regions remind this is not at all limited to Europe: as Colombia approaches a runoff election, misleading and decontextualised content has circulated during the presidential campaign, contributing to a broader erosion of trust in democratic processes and the information environment.
A fact-check by Newtral debunks a viral video showing people removing boxes of pre-marked ballots from a car trunk, allegedly in favour of presidential candidates Abelardo de la Espriella and Paloma Valencia. According to Colombia’s National Civil Registry, although authentic, the footage is not related to the current presidential election. Instead, it was recorded on May 1, 2026, during local elections in Fonseca, La Guajira, and has been recirculated out of context to spread misinformation.
GLOBAL PULSE
Disinformation narratives shaping the world’s conversations
No, Trump Didn’t Read Xi’s Notes – Viral Banquet Clip Taken Out of Context
A widely shared video from a May 2026 state banquet in Beijing led to claims that Donald Trump was caught secretly reading Chinese President Xi Jinping’s private notes. In reality, the clip was misleadingly edited and stripped of context. A closer review of the full footage shows Trump simply opening a folder that was already in front of him while Xi briefly stepped away.
The claim spread widely across platforms and languages and reflects a broader pattern of misleading narratives around international politics – including unrelated false claims, such as those alleging a full US troop withdrawal from Europe or AI‑generated images supposedly showing the evacuation of the US embassy in Kyiv – rather than any real incident during the banquet.
Viral “Attack” on US Aircraft Carrier Disproven as AI Generated Footage
As the armed conflict between the United States and Iran escalates once more, disinformation is rapidly spreading online. One widely shared video claims to show the US aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln being hit by an Iranian missile, with posts alleging heavy casualties..
As this analysis reveals, the clip itself is not real. Investigators identified multiple signs of AI‑generated imagery, including visual glitches where figures merge or disappear, while official sources confirmed the carrier was operating normally at the time. The episode illustrates how misleading visuals – especially those created with AI – can circulate during geopolitical tensions and present fabricated events as genuine.
ON A DIFFERENT NOTE
Climate disinformation from state actors is part of broader campaigns of manipulation and information interference. Far from being isolated and sporadic, climate disinformation serves as a tool in the service of their policies
Désinformation Climatique et Guerre Informationnelle: Ingérences Étatiques et Enjeux Sécuritaires, Observatoire Défense&Climat
Paolo Cesarini, Editorial Director
Tommaso Canetta, Editor-in Chief
Editorial Staff include Elena Coden, Paula Gori, Elena Maggi
This edition draws in part on automated translation and reflects information available as of 3 June 2026. Later developments may not be included.
