By Lachlan McKenzie
In an era where information spreads faster than truth can take root, the line between fact and fiction grows perilously thin. This article begins with a seemingly familiar character: a social media commentator we’ll call “Troll.” But this is not merely a story about an online provocateur – it is an exploration of the shadowy machinery behind climate change disinformation. Trolls, in this context, are not mythical creatures lurking under bridges; they are real, active participants in a global ecosystem designed to distort, deny, and derail meaningful dialogue about our planet’s future.
You may have encountered figures like Troll before – anonymous accounts, polarising pundits, or charismatic contrarians who flood timelines with doubt. Their tactics are subtle, their motives often obscured, and their impact alarmingly effective. By dissecting how such actors operate, this article aims to illuminate the strategies used to weaponise misinformation, the networks that amplify it, and the consequences of allowing falsehoods to thrive unchecked. Here, we pull back the curtain on the “disinformation playbook”, revealing why the battle for climate action is not just fought in laboratories or policy halls, but in the comments sections and algorithms of our digital world.
Behind every troll, bot, or viral falsehood lies a question rarely asked but vital to answer: Who profits from the lie? While disinformation is weaponised online, the story remains incomplete without tracing its origins. We’ll look shortly at the digital foot soldiers to their financial puppeteers – the powerful interests funding the creation and dissemination of climate denial.
Disinformation does not emerge from a vacuum. It is engineered, bankrolled, and strategically deployed by actors with vested interests in delaying climate action. From fossil fuel conglomerates to dark money networks and politically aligned think tanks, a web of funding sustains the machinery of doubt. These architects of deception rarely post themselves; instead, they finance influencers, pseudo-experts, and slick campaigns designed to erode public trust in science.
To dismantle the disinformation ecosystem, we must follow the money. Who commissions misleading studies? Who funds the PR firms that rebrand oil giants as eco-champions? Who fuels the lobbyists blocking climate policy? This article uncovers the financial pipelines that transform greed into greenwashed narratives and corporate agendas into viral conspiracy theories. By mapping these connections, we reveal not just how climate lies spread, but why – and who benefits most from a world too distracted by falsehoods to demand change.
Who is funding Troll (or, at the very least, the disinformation Troll is trolling) and like-minded trolls and why?
Climate change denialism is funded by a network of organisations and individuals with vested economic, political, or ideological interests, primarily tied to the fossil fuel industry. These actors often employ tactics reminiscent of those used by Big Tobacco to delay regulation and sow doubt about scientific consensus. Here’s a breakdown:
Examples: ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, Koch Industries, and coal companies.
Why: Fossil fuel profits depend on continued extraction and use of oil, gas, and coal. Acknowledging climate science threatens their business model and could lead to stricter regulations, taxes, or phase-outs.
Tactics:
Examples: Heartland Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), Heritage Foundation.
Why: Promote free-market ideologies that oppose government regulation. Many receive fossil fuel funding.
Tactics:
Dark Money Networks
Examples: Donors Trust, Donors Capital Fund.
Why: Anonymous donors (often fossil fuel billionaires or corporations) funnel money to climate-denying groups without public scrutiny.
Impact: Over $1 billion flowed through these networks to climate denial groups from 2003–2018.
Why: Maintain political power, campaign donations, or ideological opposition to climate action (e.g., libertarian opposition to regulation).
The fossil fuel industry has mirrored strategies Big Tobacco used to deny smoking’s health risks.
Tactic: Fund pseudo-scientific studies, think tanks, and media campaigns to amplify uncertainty about climate science.
Example: The Global Climate Coalition (GCC), a fossil fuel lobby group, spent millions in the 1990s to discredit the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).
Tactic: Create front groups posing as “concerned citizens” to oppose climate policies.
Example: The “Energy Citizens” rallies (funded by API and Koch) opposed climate legislation in the 2000s.
Tactic: Harass climate researchers (e.g., the “Climategate” smear campaign) or fund lawsuits to intimidate critics.
Tactic: Frame climate action as “economically harmful” or “premature,” pushing for endless debate instead of policies.
Confusion: By amplifying minor scientific uncertainties, they create public doubt.
Polarisation: Climate denial aligns with political identities (e.g., conservative media framing climate action as “leftist”).
Short-Term Profit: Fossil fuel companies prioritise quarterly earnings over long-term planetary risks.
Delayed Climate Policies: Decades of denial slowed global action, exacerbating the climate crisis.
Public Misunderstanding: Polls show many still believe climate science is “unsettled” despite 97% consensus.
Legal Reckoning: Fossil fuel companies now face lawsuits (e.g., New York vs. Exxon) for misleading investors and the public.
Scale: Climate denial impacts the entire planet, not just individual health.
Complexity: Climate science involves more variables than tobacco’s health risks, making it easier to exploit uncertainty.
Global Coordination: Fossil fuel lobbying operates internationally (e.g., OPEC, coal exports).
Climate denial is a well-funded, coordinated effort to protect fossil fuel profits and ideological agendas. While Big Tobacco’s tactics were eventually exposed and regulated, climate denial persists – though growing public awareness, youth activism, and renewable energy economics are shifting the tide. Recognizing these strategies is critical to countering misinformation and accelerating climate action.
To expose how climate disinformation thrives on cherry-picked history, let’s dissect Troll’s Facebook comment – a masterclass in twisting Cyclone Wanda’s 1974 aftermath to fuel modern climate denial.
This is what Troll wrote:
“The last time a major cyclone hit southeast Queensland the world’s scientists were warning of global cooling. In 1974, Cyclone Wanda hit Brisbane, and its aftermath caused one of the biggest floods the city has ever seen.
Later that year, Time Magazine published a front-page story titled “Another Ice Age?”.
The scientific environment is different today with scares about global warming replacing global cooling.
Even before the cyclone’s impact the Climate Council has been online scaring everyone about Cyclone Alfred saying that “The relentless burning of fossil fuels means we’re witnessing a rise in extreme weather events that impact us all.”
The claims of the climate alarmists do not square with the historical record. Since cyclones began to be named in the 1950s, five cyclones have hit southeast Queensland. Cyclones are more frequent in the tropics but Cyclone Alfred’s track towards Brisbane is not uncommon.
And Australia-wide there is a clear declining trend in cyclones.
From 1970 to 2000, Australia was hit by an average of 12 cyclones a year, with six of them being severe. Since 2000, the average has just been nine cyclones a year with just four of them being severe.
In 2014, scientists published in Nature magazine estimates of a longer trend in Australian cyclonic activity using the carbonate concentrations in stalagmites.
They found that “the Australian region seems to be experiencing the most pronounced phase of tropical cyclone inactivity for the past 550–1,500 years.”
The declining trend in Australian cyclones is curiously not mentioned by those who scream the loudest for us to “listen to the science.”
None of this is to minimise the impact that may be felt by the people of southeast Queensland, and northern NSW, in coming days.
Let us pray that the worst of the predictions is avoided. But if the worst does happen what the people of Brisbane will need is help, not a political lecture. Just as the nation did in 2011 and 2022, I am sure the vast majority of Australians will pull together to help Queensland and NSW clean up any mess and rebuild anything that was destroyed.
But thankfully, and despite what you might hear from the climate fearmongers, natural disasters cause much fewer deaths than they used to. In the 1920s, a shocking 500,000 people a year died, on average, due to natural disasters.
In the 2020s, fewer than 40,000 people globally a year die from natural disasters, and just 12 a year in Australia.
When we hear the refrain to “listen to the science”, it is often to only listen to some scientists, like the climate scientists.
The people chanting this rarely want to listen to the civil engineering scientists or the petroleum scientists who know how the modern world works.”
The climate change denial tactics employed in the troll’s argument include cherry-picking data, misrepresenting historical scientific consensus, red herrings, and false balance. Here’s a breakdown of each tactic and why they are misleading or incorrect:
Tactic: The troll highlights a regional decline in Australian cyclones since the 1950s and a stalagmite study suggesting long-term inactivity, while ignoring global trends and broader climate impacts.
Why It’s Wrong:
Tactic: Citing a 1970s global cooling narrative to imply scientists are unreliable.
Why It’s Wrong:
Tactic: Highlighting reduced deaths from natural disasters to downplay climate impacts.
Why It’s Wrong:
Why It’s Wrong:
Why It’s Wrong:
The troll’s argument relies on selective data, historical distortions, and logical fallacies to dismiss climate science. While regional cyclone trends and reduced mortality rates are real, they do not refute the overwhelming evidence of human-driven climate change or its global consequences. Effective policy requires addressing both mitigation (reducing emissions) and adaptation (improving resilience)—not cherry-picking facts to undermine scientific consensus.
Yet here lies our power: to see these actors for what they are – agents of disinformation, not truth. To question narratives that dismiss lived experience, cherry-pick history, or cloak vested interests in faux skepticism. Critical thinking is our shield. When we demand evidence, trace motives, and amplify peer-reviewed science over algorithmic sensationalism, we silence the fog of falsehoods.
The stakes are not abstract. They are written in the ashes of wildfires, the tears of flooded communities, the silent bleaching of coral reefs. To let disinformation flourish is to surrender our future. But when we choose to listen to science – all science, from civil engineers designing resilient cities to climatologists sounding the alarm – we turn up the volume on truth. Let it roar louder than the Trolls. Let it guide us, unflinching, toward action.
The next time you scroll past a Troll, remember: the cure for disinformation isn’t just fact-checking. It’s courage – to confront denial, to champion clarity, and to forge a world where truth isn’t drowned out, but demanded.
Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
The time has come for arguably the sporting world’s most famous mafia organisation to select…
By Lachlan McKenzie An article in the New York Times; These Words Are Disappearing in…
Peter Dutton ranks high in most lists of unlikeable politicians, and the reasons for the…
Australia, you build your monuments high, so the past stays out of sight, You paint…
The week that was: cyclones, simple answers to complex problems, insensitivity, diplomacy, integrity, humour, and…
By Denis Hay Why US Military Bases Make Australia a Target – And How…