This from the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH):
Climate disinformation and misinformation refers to deceptive or misleading content that:
Undermines the existence or impacts of climate change, the unequivocal human influence on climate change, and the need for corresponding urgent action according to the IPCC scientific consensus and in line with the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement [IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change];
Misrepresents scientific data, including by omission or cherry-picking, in order to erode trust in climate science, climate-focused institutions, experts, and solutions;
Falsely publicises efforts as supportive of climate goals that in fact contribute to climate warming or contravene the scientific consensus on mitigation or adaptation.
The first thing I noticed was that CCDH conflated “disinformation” and “misinformation”. Standard definitions distinguish them: disinformation is deliberate and malicious, whereas misinformation does not imply an intention to deceive, being simply false or inaccurate information. But then CCDH includes omission and cherry-picking of data as a form of dis/misinformation, which is not the same thing as false or inaccurate information. Whether omitting or cherry-picking data is bad or not depends on context. There’s nothing wrong with omitting or cherry-picking data if one is highlighting unexpected findings; it’s another matter if one is presenting a few findings as representative of an entire dataset.
Also, there is no scientific consensus on the mitigation, adaptation or impacts of climate change, except in the most general sense, i.e., the global climate will get warmer, we need to reduce emissions , and humanity will have to adapt to changing weather patterns. However, the IPCC reports don’t express opinions as a matter of “consensus”, but in terms of probabilities, levels of confidence , evidence quality, and agreement among sources. And while there is high agreement the planet will become warmer and the weather more erratic and extreme, there is not high agreement on how bad things will get, the impact on specific regions, or the ability of ecosystems and human societies to adapt to climate change. Instead, the IPCC gives us lots of scenarios of what might be, given current data, various assumptions and the models used.
Nor does the IPCC endorse a specific course of action for climate change mitigation or adaptation. Instead, the IPCC provides “options” along with their potential benefits and costs. For example, mitigation options offered in the 2022 IPCC report (AR6) include nuclear energy, reduced conversion of forests, energy efficient buildings, and fuel efficient vehicles. However, the IPCC cautions that externalities (i.e., unfortunate side effects) were not taken into account when compiling the list of mitigation options and the advisability of particular options will vary by time, place and context. So, yes, the IPCC may counsel “urgent” action, but it also counsels flexibility and the willingness to change course as the science and technology evolves. And that leaves a lot of room for disagreement and debate.
Bottom line: The Center for Countering Digital Hate appears misinformed about the IPCC and the nature of the scientific consensus on climate change. However, I won’t accuse them of misinformation, because that word is way overused.
References:
“The Toxic Ten”, Center for Countering Digital Hate. November 2, 2021 https://counterhate.com/research/the-toxic-ten/?_ga=2.246477517.831876092.1669065945-65014163.1669065945
“Climate Change 2022: Summary for Policymakers- Mitigation of Climate Change” Working Group III Contribution to the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/