Climate Disinformation Architecture
A Taxonomy of Strategies, Actors, and Theoretical Models in the Digital Ecosystem
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46391/ALCEU.v26.ed58.2026.552Keywords:
Climate Disinformation, Denialism, Media System, Digital PlatformsAbstract
The climate crisis is accompanied by an information integrity crisis. To investigate the genealogy and lines of force of this strand of disinformation, this theoretical essay adopts a qualitative methodological approach inspired by cartography, synthesizing two decades of scientific literature. The mapping clarifies that the assemblage is composed of four interdependent axes of problematization: the sociological (actors), the cognitive (arguments), the discursive (content), and the technological (digital assemblage). The analysis demonstrates that denial has evolved from attacking science to a war against solutions. Instead of accidental noise, its nonlinear architecture constitutes an intrinsic functionality of the current platformized media system, which profits from the attention economy. The lines of force traced here indicate that purely reactive confrontation is insufficient. Thus, the study points to the engendering of prophylactic tactics — such as psychological inoculation (prebunking) and algorithmic literacy — as a timely research agenda to depollute the infosphere and protect the biosphere.
Downloads
References
ACSELRAD, H. Conflitos ambientais no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Relume Dumará, 2004.
BAIMA, S. Tracing Climate Change Denial in the United States and Looking for Impacts on the United States’ Science Diplomacy. 2020. Dissertação (Mestrado em Governança Econômica Global e Assuntos Públicos), Centre International de Formation Européenne/Luiss School of Government, Berlin/Roma, 2020.
BECKER, M.J. Algorithms Shift Polarization. Why Does Policy Still Miss the Real Problem? Tech Policy Press, Nova York, 23 dez. 2025. Perspective. Disponível em: https://www.techpolicy.press/algorithms-shift-polarization-why-does-policy-still-miss-the-real-problem/. Acesso em: 10 jan. 2026.
CENTER FOR COUNTERING DIGITAL HATE (CCDH). The New Climate Denial: How social media platforms and content producers profit by spreading new forms of climate denial. [S.l.]: CCDH, jan. 2024. Disponível em: https://counterhate.com/research/new-climate-denial/. Acesso em: 5 fev. 2025.
CENTER FOR COUNTERING DIGITAL HATE (CCDH). YouTube’s Climate Denial Dollars: How Google is Breaking Its Promise to Stop Profiting From Ads on Climate Denial Videos. [S.l.]: CCDH, 2023. Disponível em: https://counterhate.com/research/google-climate-change-disinformation-YouTube-videos/. Acesso em: 22 abr. 2025.
COOK, J. Combining Games and Critical Thinking to Fight Misinformation. American Federation of Teachers, Washington, 2022. Teaching About Our Climate Crisis. Disponível em: https://www.aft.org/ae/winter2021-2022/cook.
COOK, J. Deconstructing Climate Science Denial. In: HOLMES, D.; RICHARDSON, L. M. (org.). Edward Elgar Research Handbook in Communicating Climate Change. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2020. p. 62-78.
COOK, J.; LEWANDOWSKY, S.; ECKER, U.K.H. Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence. PLoS ONE, San Francisco, v. 12, n. 5, maio 2017. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175799.
DELEUZE, G.; GUATTARI, F. Mil platôs: capitalismo e esquizofrenia. v. 1. Rio de Janeiro: Editora 34, 1995.
DIETHELM, P.; MCKEE, M. Denialism: What Is It and How Should Scientists Respond? European Journal of Public Health, Oxford, v. 19, n. 1, p. 2-4, jan. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckn139.
DONOVAN, J.; FRIEDBERG, B. Source Hacking: Media Manipulation in Practice. New York: Data & Society Research Institute, 2019. Disponível em: https://datasociety.net/library/source-hacking-media-manipulation-in-practice/. Acesso em: 28 fev. 26.
DUNLAP, R.E. Climate change skepticism and denial: an introduction. American Behavioral Scientist, Thousand Oaks v. 57, n. 6, p.691-698, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213477097.
DUNLAP, R.E.; MCCRIGHT, A.M. Organized Climate Change Denial. In: DRYZEK, J. S.; NORGAARD, R. B.; SCHLOSBERG, D. (Orgs.). The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. p. 144-160.
EMPOLI, G. da. Os engenheiros do caos. São Paulo: Vestígio, 2019.
GUDYNAS, E. Direitos da natureza: ética biocêntrica e políticas ambientais. São Paulo: Elefante, 2019.
HANSSON, S. O. Science Denial as a Form of Pseudoscience. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Oxford, v. 63, p. 39-47, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2017.05.002.
HUR, D. U. Cartografia das intensidades: pesquisa e método em esquizoanálise. Revista Práxis Educacional, Vitória da Conquista, v. 17, n. 46, p. 275-292, jul./set. 2021. https://doi.org/10.22481/praxisedu.v17i46.8392.
KAHAN, D.M.; JENKINS-SMITH, H.; BRAMAN, D. Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus. Journal of Risk Research, Londres, v. 14, n. 2, p. 147-174, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.511246.
KIRCHGAESSNER, S. et al. Revealed: the Hacking and Disinformation Team Meddling in Elections. The Guardian, Londres, 14 fev. 2023. Disponível em: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/15/revealed-disinformation-team-jorge-claim-meddling-elections-tal-hanan. Acesso em: 20 jul. 2025.
LAMB, W.F.; MATTIOLI, G.; LEVI, SEBASTIAN; SCHOOL, H.; ROBERTS, J.T. Discourses of Climate Delay. Global Sustainability, Cambridge, v. 3, p. 1-5, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.13.
LAYRARGUES, P.P. Quando os ecologistas incomodam: a desregulação ambiental pública no Brasil sob o signo do anti-ecologismo. RP3 Revista de Pesquisa em Políticas Públicas, Brasília, v. 1, n. 12, p. 1-30, 2018. https://doi.org/10.18829/rp3.v0i12.26952.
LEWANDOWSKY, S. et al. The Debunking Handbook 2020. [S.l.: s.n.], 2020. Disponível em: https://sks.to/db2020. Acesso em: 9 set. 2025.
LEWANDOWSKY, S.; VAN DER LINDEN, S. Inoculating the Public Against Misinformation About Climate Change. Global Challenges, v. 5, n. 10, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201600008.
LEWANDOWSKY, Stephan; COOK, John. The Conspiracy Theory Handbook. [S.l.]: George Mason University/University of Bristol, 2020.
LUSCOMBE, R. Shell Called Out for Promoting Fossil Fuels to Youth via Fortnite Game. The Guardian, Londres, 6 out. 2023. Disponível em: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/06/shell-fortnite-game-youth-marketing-campaign-fossil-fuels. Acesso em: 11 nov. 2025.
MARLOW, T.; MILLER, S.; ROBERTS, J. T. Bots and Online Climate Discourses: Twitter Discourse on President Trump’s Announcement of U.S. Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. Climate Policy, Londres, v. 21, n. 6, p. 765-777, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1870098.
MCCRIGHT, A.M.; DUNLAP, R.E. Cool dudes: The Denial of Climate Change Among Conservative White Males in the United States. Global Environmental Change, Oxford, v. 21, n. 4, p. 1163-1172, nov. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.003.
NYHAN, B. Defeating the Merchants of Doubt. Nature, Londres, v. 465, p. 686-687, jun. 2010. Disponível em: https://www.nature.com/articles/465686a. Acesso em: 12 abr. 2025.
PFLIEGER, G.; DE PRYCK, K. Contextualizing Discourses of Climate Delay: A Response to Lamb et al. (2020). Global Sustainability, Cambridge, v. 6, e20, p. 1-2, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2023.18.
PUTRI, S.D.G.; PURNOMO, E.P.; KHAIRUNISSA, T. Echo Chambers and Algorithmic Bias: The Homogenization of Online Culture in a Smart Society. SHS Web of Conferences, Les Ulis, v. 202, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202420205001.
ROLNIK, S. Cartografia sentimental: transformações contemporâneas do desejo. Porto Alegre: Sulina; Editora da UFRGS, 2011.
ROOZENBEEK, J.; VAN DER LINDEN; S.; NYGREN, T. Prebunking Interventions Based on “Inoculation” Theory Can Reduce Susceptibility to Misinformation Across Cultures. The Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, Cambridge, v. 1, n. 2, p. 1-15, fev. 2020. https://doi.org/10.37016//mr-2020-008.
SALLES, D.; MUNIZ DE MEDEIROS, P.; MARTINS, B.; REGATTIERI, L.; SANTINI, R. M. The role of social bots in the Brazilian environmental debate:: an analysis of the 2020 Amazon Forest fires in Twitter. The International Review of Information Ethics. Edmonton, Canada, v. 33, n. 1, 2024. https://doi.org/10.29173/irie510.
SUPRAN, G.; ORESKES, N. Assessing ExxonMobil’s Climate Change Communications (1977–2014). Environmental Research Letters, v. 12, n. 8, ago. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f.
VAN DER LINDEN, S.; LEISEROWITZ, A.; ROSENTHAL, S.; MAIBACH, E. Inoculating the Public Against Misinformation About Climate Change. Global Challenges, v. 1, n. 2, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201600008.
VAN DER LINDEN, S.; ROOZENBEEK, J.; COMPTON, J. Inoculating Against Fake News About Covid-19. Frontiers in Psychology, Lausanne, v. 11, out. 2020. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.566790.
VAN DIJCK, J., POELL; T.; DE WAAL, M. The Platform Society. Nova York: Oxford Academic, 2018.
VOSOUGHI, S.; ROY, D.; ARAL, S. The spread of true and false news online. Science, Washington, DC, v. 359, n. 6380, p. 1146-1151, mar. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559.
ZANARTU, F.; COOK, J.; WAGNER, M.; GARCIA, J. Detecting Fallacies in Climate Misinformation: A Technocognitive Approach to Identifying Misleading Argumentation. arXiv, Ithaca, 2405.08254v1, p. 1-22, maio 2024. Disponível em: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.08254. Acesso em: 11 jul. 2025.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 ALCEU

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
