What impact do climate change misinformation and disinformation have? The only reason why I ask is because the UK government is confident it knows the answer and I was just wondering whether you do too. I am guessing that you don’t. After all, how could you, given that you weren’t there back in June 2023 to attend a Government Office for Science meeting specifically convened to answer that very question? Meetings such as these, in which a selected few scientists are invited to brief the government, are actually a very common practice – governments just love their scientific advisory boards. How else do you think the UK managed to steer its path through the minefield that was the Covid-19 pandemic without putting a foot wrong? And how else do you think they are going to deliver Net Zero and save the world with nary a false step to be taken? Yes, they are going to call lots of Mt Sinai style meetings, attended by the lucky few who get to thrash out the approved scientific doctrine and then etch it in stone for the benefit of any government that has a penchant for claiming a scientific basis for its latest madcap impositions.

So what of this June 2023 meeting — you know, the one convened to ask what impact do climate change misinformation and disinformation have?  Exactly what pearls of wisdom were passed from its lofty height down to us mere mortals? Who exactly were the scientific high priests convened for this occasion and what body of evidence did they summon? Well, if you want answers to these questions you need to consult the government’s own Government Office for Science website. Alternatively, you can place your faith in my pledge not to misinform you, and just continue reading this article. I promise you, I will only miss out the boring and less relevant stuff.

Firstly, I’m going to skip over a number of ‘key points’ relating to “Evidence for the impact of misinformation and disinformation”, since I feel they are rather uncontroversial. For example, I do not intend disputing that there have been examples of misinformation that have had serious consequences. And when they say that finding a correlation between misinformation and behavioural change isn’t proof of causation, how could anyone disagree? Behaviours have a number of drivers and it is all rather a complicated business. They also point out that most of the research has been based in the West, particularly the US, and so it may not readily transfer. Other non-contentious claims include the insight that the influence of misinformation depends upon an individual’s susceptibility. Who knew? In fact, there was quite a bit that came out of the meeting that didn’t appear to require professorial levels of attention. So far, I don’t think the attendees have even earned the finger buffet that was no doubt laid on for them.

The more interesting stuff comes under the heading “Misinformation, disinformation, and the climate”. But before I get into that, I think it is high time that we took a look at some of the stars of the show.

Firstly, there is the chair of the meeting, Dr Angela McLean, Government Chief Scientific Adviser. I’m not familiar with this lady’s background, other than she is a biologist and the first woman to have held that post. Then there is Carme Colomina of the Barcelona Centre for International Affairs. Don’t think I know her. Then there’s mathematician and statistician, Professor Frank Kelly of the University of Cambridge. Presumably he was there because he has written on the subject for the Royal Society. And then there’s a whole bunch of behavioural scientists; a presence which gives a big clue as to the direction this meeting was destined to follow. In particular, there’s John Cook of Melbourne University. This Horrible Lulu can be relied upon to turn up wherever his deeply troubling idea of ‘inoculation’ against misinformation might receive a warm welcome. He is joined on this occasion by none other than Sander Van der Linden, another merchant of nudge who fails to see the moral peril of so-called pre-bunking. But it’s not just the predominance of behavioural scientists that concerns me. I see also that Jennie King of the Institute for Strategic Dialogue turned up to peddle her views on the dangers of free speech. Climate scientists, on the other hand, were rather under-represented, with Stephen Belcher, Chief Scientific Advisor for the Met Office, the only climatologist holding a golden ticket. That said, he may have only received an invite because the Met Office has recently shown its political colours by involving itself in the business of forecasting the country’s socio-political future.

There were eight other attendees, but I think I’ve seen enough. This just doesn’t bode well, but let’s move on anyway to what the meeting came up with and let’s hope for the best. And wouldn’t you know it, the very first point made on the subject of ‘misinformation, disinformation, and the climate’ is actually rather a good one:

There are legitimate debates to be had on areas of climate science and solutions to climate change. Scepticism is not, in and of itself, misinformation.

Clearly, there was someone in that room who knew what they were talking about. And whoever it was, they managed to get in one more reasonable point:

Resistance to policies or ideas on any topic should not be reductively attributed to misinformation. It is important to understand the broader context behind individuals’ motives and actions.

This is all going swimmingly, but after a promising start it looks like the Cook and Van der Linden camp found its voice:

Misinformation is one method for interest groups to propagate climate change resistance. Misinformation used in conjunction with other methods can negatively affect policy adoption.

So having warned that resistance to policy should not be reductively attributed to misinformation, the meeting then firmly places the spotlight on it. Well that little moment of lucidity didn’t last long! To make matters worse, it looks like Jennie returns from the buffet to chip in with:

Research into climate misinformation – including randomised control trials and modelling – has found effects including reduced climate literacy, greater polarisation and impacts on how climate scientists work and communicate with the public.

But then that mysterious voice of common sense counters with:

As noted, it is hard to prove causation with respect to behavioural effects amid a range of potential external factors.

It is at this point that the behavioural scientists in the room seem to have lost patience with all of the sensible stuff and ganged together to deliver the following humdinger:

In the UK, public concern about climate is increasing. Denial of climate science is no longer a serious issue.

This piece of nonsense cannot be allowed to stand, so I’m going to have to digress a little to uproot its origins.

If you look at the list of References cited by the meeting you will find the following paper: Geiger, N., & Swim, J. (2016). Climate of silence: Pluralistic ignorance as a barrier to climate change discussion. Journal of Environmental Psychology. Pluralistic ignorance is the idea that I spoke of recently in which there is supposed to be a huge silent majority out there begging for more climate action — because climate change lies at the top of everyone’s list of concerns, didn’t you know? Apparently, nobody denies the science of climate change anymore, but this acceptance of the science has gone underground for fear of social disapproval. Which, of course, is all just wishful thinking backed up with some of the sloppiest reasoning I’ve come across in a long while. Take the Geiger & Swim paper, for example. They claim to have conducted studies that “verify that the pattern of pluralistic ignorance about climate change observed in Leviston et al. (2013) work would replicate in our target population”. But the Leviston et al. paper isn’t even about pluralistic ignorance. It’s about the false consensus effect – quite a different cognitive bias. And whilst we are down this rabbit hole, I might as well point out that Leviston et al. get this all wrong anyway by failing to take into account a statistical effect called regression to the mean. More importantly, however, the data in the Leviston et al. paper (ref. Figure 1) quite clearly shows that there is pretty much a fifty-fifty split between those that believe in anthropogenic climate change and those that don’t. And if there is any pluralistic ignorance amongst the believers, this is at least matched by pluralistic ignorance amongst those who accept climate change but don’t accept its anthropogenic origins! To this day, the Leviston et al. paper is cited as evidence that climate deniers are in a tiny but deluded minority dominated by a silent majority of believers, and yet only a cursory glance at the paper is required to determine that this is certainly not the case. Amongst the ranks of behavioural scientists, ‘denial’ of climate science may not be a thing, but out there in the big wide world it is very much alive and kicking. Their own data tells them so but they seem strangely incapable of assimilating it.

Meanwhile, back in the room, we have this nugget to deal with:

Research indicates that people recognise the gravity of climate change but do not think their actions alone are enough to resolve the issue. 

Again, I can well believe that everyone sat at the roundtable of the anointed recognised the ‘gravity of climate change’, but I’m sure they then simply project their own views onto the general public. Besides which, would the man in the street be wrong in thinking that their actions alone would be insufficient to ‘resolve the issue’? I know that mine would be.

The meeting then moved on to talk about lack of public trust in the government and contrasted this with high levels of trust in scientists. I’m sure that was accompanied by frantic nodding of heads all around the table. Then comes the following:

The challenge from mis- and disinformation lies now in distortion of discussions of climate solutions.

This one is straight out of Jennie King’s ‘Deny, Deceive, Delay’ report produced for COP 27.

Anyway, by this stage in proceedings, the stench of groupthink in the room must have been overpowering. Behold all these people with distorted views — by which is meant views not held by the assembled avengers. Cue talk of heat pumps and how  ‘distorted discussion’ is part of a ‘discourse favouring delays on climate action’. I do wonder, however, how many of those present had already installed their own heat pumps before turning up at the meeting. Just saying.

The next point is interesting:

The UK media has moved past attempting to present a balanced argument regarding climate change, which gave voice to climate deniers, but some outlets continue to give voice to unscientific views on second order issues such as heat pumps.

Enough already with the heat pumps! But more to the point, I wonder if these people are listening to themselves. Do they really think it was an achievement to have “moved past attempting to present a balanced argument regarding climate change”?

We are then presented with the profound insight that “Climate misinformation peaks during key events, for instance following publication of IPCC reports”. Tell me about it. There has yet to be a published IPCC report that The Guardian hasn’t then woven into its liberal, left-wing agenda.

The meeting continues by acknowledging how the public tunes into climate hypocrisy, as exemplified by politicians flying to summits. It’s not clear whether this narrative is seen as misinformation, but the meeting did say that “Such messaging contributes to arguments for individual inaction.” Their point being?

Having spent time exchanging favourite preconceptions, the meeting concluded with an attempt to decide upon what to do about it all. I have to say, however, that this closing section was something of an anti-climax. The general opinion was that “misinformation is a complex issue” and attempts to address it run the risk of “backfiring”. A multi-disciplinary approach would be required but there was “value in the public understanding the fundamental techniques of disinformation.” None of this seems to amount to much, and if I were the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser chairing this meeting I would be feeling somewhat short-changed at this point. It seemed to require a lot of academic input and smoked salmon sandwiches to come up with such a wishy-washy set of statements. But let’s face it, this was never about putting the world to rights. This was all about getting a seat at the table and using it to re-inforce one’s reputation amongst the voices of expert authority.

I am of two minds as to whether or not I would have enjoyed being at this meeting. Part of me would have loved to have witnessed first-hand the battle of egos as each expert strove to ensure their pet ideas made it into the minutes. But then, I don’t think there is a vol-au-vent on earth that could be delicious enough to compensate for having to sit through so much tediously familiar politicking. Ostensibly, the meeting was all about tackling climate mis- and disinformation but, as far as I can see, it was much more about ensuring that the government of the day was exposed to the right sort of misinformation – the sort that tells it that it is doing fine and the whole country is behind it. All the public needs is a good kick up the backside – sorry, campaign of clever nudging – to push it over the finishing line. Oh, and a lot less free speech and democracy would work wonders.

So just stand firm Ed, and don’t falter now. You are almost there. The Marxist utopia you have always dreamed of is virtually within your grasp. Just keep following the science, but always remember to only invite the ‘right-minded’ scientists to your next Mad Hatter’s Tea Party. Cook and Van der Linden are always available. And they’re in the phone book.