The Origins of Denial
For decades, fossil fuel giants like ExxonMobil knew that burning coal, oil, and gas was warming the planet.
Internal documents from the late 1970s and early 1980s show they understood the science clearly, yet they chose to fund denial campaigns instead of transitioning to cleaner alternatives[1].
Rather than warn the public, industry lobby groups like the Global Climate Coalition spent millions casting doubt on the science.
Their strategy? Mimic Big Tobacco’s denial model: hire PR firms, sow uncertainty, and attack climate scientists.
Weaponising Misinformation
One of the most infamous examples of manufactured controversy was “Climategate.”
In 2009, hackers released selectively edited emails from climate scientists, falsely suggesting data manipulation.
Conservative media outlets seized the moment.
Headlines screamed “Fraud!”—but multiple investigations later found no wrongdoing[2].
The scientists were exonerated; the damage was done.
The denial movement thrives on misdirection. They exploit short-term cold snaps to argue “global warming isn’t real,” ignoring long-term data showing the planet heating up[3].
This tactic, cherry-picking weather over climate, is still rampant across social media and tabloid headlines.
The Myth of “Both Sides”
Another major contributor to public confusion is the media’s flawed commitment to “balance.”
For years, news programs would pit a climate scientist against a paid skeptic, giving the illusion of a 50-50 scientific split. In reality, more than 97% of climate scientists agree: humans are driving climate change[5].
This false equivalence misled millions, delaying public action and influencing policy.
Major networks have since improved, but the damage lingers—especially in countries where political ideologies treat climate science as a partisan issue.
Follow the Money
A 2015 InsideClimate News investigation revealed Exxon had climate modelling capabilities that rivalled those of NASA in the 1980s.
Yet the company chose to invest in anti-science campaigns, funding think tanks and pseudo-academics to argue against regulation[1].
Groups like the Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute continue to receive funding from fossil fuel interests, producing misleading white papers and school curriculum guides.
Their aim? Keep fossil fuel profits flowing—regardless of ecological cost.
The Consequences of Doubt
The result of these lies isn’t just confusion—it’s catastrophe.
Every year of delay means more devastating bushfires, stronger cyclones, rising sea levels, and displaced communities.
Australia’s own climate record is a grim warning: hotter summers, deadly floods, and a vanishing Great Barrier Reef.
Yet denial persists. It shape-shifts: from “climate change isn’t real” to “it’s real but not urgent” to “it’s too late.”
These narratives serve the same master—inaction.
The Truth Wins—Eventually
Despite decades of deception, the truth is rising like the mercury.
The scientific consensus is overwhelming. Renewable energy is cheaper than ever. Youth movements, Indigenous leadership, and frontline communities are demanding justice.
The climate denial machine is running out of time. But so are we.
To fight back, we must not only act, we must name the lies, follow the money, and remember who misled us.
Footnotes
- [1] InsideClimate News. “Exxon: The Road Not Taken”.
- [2] BBC. “Climategate scientists cleared of manipulating data”.
- [3] NASA. “Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming”.
- [4] The Guardian. “False balance in climate coverage”.
- [5] Environmental Research Letters. “Consensus on consensus: a synthesis”.
