Many published articles and other media content have come to the forefront on mainstream and social media related to so-called anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the last year. Core to “the climate narrative” is that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, one of multiple variables that may be affecting our atmosphere and climate, is the dominant, if not the sole variable causing warming.
In my last article, “Controlling perception – how images and colours are used to induce fear”, I looked at how propagandized images designed to instill fear are being used as part of the climate narrative.[1]
Here, I discuss how propaganda becomes narrative and examine various propagandist approaches.
Impact on humans
In my first article, “How to recognize when science becomes selective”,[2] I discussed the difference between facts and non-facts in science. Let’s revisit these.
Many things touted as facts are, in fact, not facts. If we consider the difference between facts and non-facts on an objective value (truth) basis, facts easily outweigh non-facts, as illustrated below.
What is a fact?
- A fact is a thing that is known to be true, especially when it is proved to be true.[3]
What is a non-fact?
- Models, prophecies, simulations, hypotheses, predictions, forecasts, paradigms, reconstructions, interpretations, projections, scenarios, ideas, perceptions, thoughts, concepts, notions, opinions, positions, beliefs, suggestions, inferences, assumptions, presumptions, preferences, suppositions, negotiations, consensuses, superstitions, arguments, estimates, guesses, hunches, feelings, rumours, dogma, and narratives are NOT facts.
- Adding strong adjectives or fear-inspiring imagery to a non-fact does not elevate it to the status of fact.
- The passionate promotion, approval, or support of non-facts by charismatic individuals, celebrities, or powerful people does not convert them to facts.
- Non-facts can be grouped in the category of “beliefs” as they are not objective in nature.
Emotions
We humans are emotional creatures. Those who cannot convince others to align on a viewpoint based on facts may resort to using non-factual information, or beliefs (non-facts) to advance their cause. Some go as far as to refer to their beliefs as their “truths”.
When beliefs are introduced in the equation, almost invariably these involve emotions and other human characteristics such as pride, ego, and place in society (family, tribalism, etc.). These are subjective in nature, and very personal and important to many of us.
Well-organized groups or individuals recognizing this can leverage their use of images and words to shape public opinion and persuade people to support their causes, viewpoints, or positions – notably by triggering an emotional response rather than a rational response from the reader.
When individuals’ belief systems are factored in, then beliefs can outweigh facts, and tip the balance as drawn below.
Well-crafted “communication campaigns” (propaganda) via mainstream and social media have been and are used. If any of the material is controversial or instills a certain level of fear, then some media are happy to retransmit or write articles about these because negativity (bad news) sells.[4]Add to this the increasing trend of people sourcing news from social media,[5]coupled with the ease with which groups and individuals publish unvetted content on those platforms, and a larger audience can be accessed and influenced.
Propaganda
For me, propaganda is the systemic propagation of information, which may or may not be factual, destined to shape public opinion and persuade people to support a particular cause or point of view. Propaganda is intended to generate an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented.
Various strategies may be employed for this, and are commonly used in day-to-day advertising, such as for the following types of propaganda[6]:
- Repetition – repeating an idea, slogan, or phrase many times to “etch” the item into a person’s mind.
- The big lie – repeating something extraordinary or untrue so often that people start to believe it. This is the nefarious method used by Joseph Goebbels during the Hitler Nazi regime of the 1930s and 1940s, arguably an evolution of repetition propaganda.
- Fear mongering – evoking doubt, insecurity, or fear as a means of convincing people.
- Cherry picking – mentioning only the information that supports a viewpoint while ignoring any contradicting information.
- Bandwagon – leverages the human desire to fit in and belong to a group.
- Glittering generality – using vague, persuasive language to create positive feelings and build trust, or gain support or approval without providing evidence, as you often see in political speeches.
- Plain folks – using situations of everyday people using everyday language, possibly with down-to-earth imagery, to make people feel that they are part of something greater.
- Stereotyping – linking a target demographic to certain characteristics to capitalize on societal differences such as gender, appearance, where one lives, ethnicity, age, income, and religion, among others.
- Testimonial – sharing of personal stories, be it by celebrities or not, to build trust and emotional connection.
- Transfer – associating a product or an idea with such things as a positive activity or surroundings to build a favourable sentiment – e.g., associating in advertising a sport-utility vehicle with freedom as it drives through beautiful, pristine wilderness.
- Unstated assumption – making unsubstantiated claims about something, and because there is no proof, the viewer/reader believes the claims – i.e., “This is real, and everything else is fake.”
- Vilification – using dehumanizing language, verbal abuse, insults, or name-calling to engender fear, contempt, distrust, or hate in discrediting individuals, groups, or opponents.
The list above is long but by no means exhaustive. I notice many of these being often used regularly, be they in advertising, politics, or in efforts to advance a particular cause, be they for financial gain or not.
Repetition – a closer look
Many of us have heard the saying, “repeat a lie often enough, and it becomes the truth,”, which some attribute to Goebbels.[7]Subsequent research into repetition, be it repetition of true or false statements, has shown that,
- “Repeated statements are more likely to be judged as ‘true’ than are similar, non-repeated statements”[8]
- “The repetition of a plausible statement increases a person’s belief in the referential validity or truth of that statement.”[9]
This has been described as the “illusory truth effect” (illusion of truth), where if a statement is repeated often, be it factual or not and be it credible or not, then it can be perceived as being true – even when the information or its source is initially recognized as being suspect or questionable.[10] [11] [12]
Imagine plugging emotions into this. Then imagine moulding public opinion by triggering emotional reactions through symbols, association, and emotions to make the target group feel something in order to circumvent rational thought. Then relate this feeling to whatever you want the target group to believe. This was termed the “The Engineering of Consent” by Edward Bernays in his 1947 essay with the same name.[13Some closing words exemplify the approach:
“If the plans are well formulated and the proper use is made of them, the ideas conveyed by the words will become part and parcel of the people themselves. When the public is convinced of the soundness of an idea, it will proceed to action. People translate an idea into action suggested by the idea itself, whether it is ideological, political, or social.”[14]
Later in this article, the selected examples demonstrate the use of repetition propaganda, somewhat augmented by engineering of consent in some of the related articles and certainly in related social media posts. There appears to be a fine line between repetition and big-lie propaganda, which this method can surreptitiously straddle.
Narratives
Narratives can be an important part of propaganda. They are the storytelling parts of the equation that can shift the balance from what is factual toward a desired outcome that may not be supported factually. This can be done by using non-factual information or by a mix of factual and non-factual information. The mix of the two types can instill the impression of credibility of the non-factual information, making the narrative seem plausible.
Properly designed narratives can influence people, in particular through targeting the emotional responses of the target audience.
Here is one definition of propagandistic narratives:
“Narratives are stories designed to explain the world, to tell about reality in the format of a finite story that can be remembered and retold to others, sounds logical and convincing, has no internal contradictions, and gives a comfortable illusion of possessing the ultimate information about the issue. Narratives can be close to the truth, far from the truth, (or) having nothing to do with the truth.”[15]
A critique of the climate narrative
Regarding the climate narrative, a 2025 publication by DeAngelo and Curry provides a critique of what they call the “apocalyptic climate narrative”:
“According to the apocalyptic climate narrative, humanity faces an existential threat from global warming that can be averted only by aggressive suppression of fossil-fuel use. The narrative has been promoted by environmental activists, prominent politicians, and the United Nations for more than three decades, and has been accepted as gospel truth by many citizens of the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and other wealthy countries.
Alarming narratives that have an aura of plausibility can be highly effective tools for shaping public opinion and public policies. When such narratives are false or seriously misleading, they can do significant damage because of unintended consequences of their policy prescriptions.”[16]
Observations
The remarkable, rapid onslaught of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) articles, commentary, and posts on mainstream and social media since late 2025 clearly demonstrated the use of repetition to advance the climate crisis narrative.
Certainly, some of this was a well-organized, concerted effort as a number of the organizations involved have dedicated communication teams. On the social media front, there have been countless instances on LinkedIn, Facebook and other platforms in which content from these teams has been published/posted.
Many of the posts on social media were similar in appearance, with sentence construction, vocabulary, and formatting resembling AI-generated summaries in whole or in part. Notably, AI-authored or not, definitive wording was used in the texts about aspects that are scientifically unproven.
As a simple exercise, I tried some of the “free” AI chatbots online, and typed in the words “world energy imbalance” and, separately, “global warming has accelerated significantly” (two of the examples below). The text outputs were remarkably similar to many of the posts, right down to the emojis used in the texts. Arguably, some form of inspiration could have influenced the authors of these posts, where one could selectively “cut and paste” items if they so wished? It is up to each person to form their own opinion about this. Apply the Duck Test if you wish:
“If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.”
The tactics are reminiscent of a blitzkrieg, which, in its strategic sense, refers to an overwhelming series of quick and decisive short incursions to deliver a knockout blow to an opponent before they can fully mobilize.[17]
Baffling misdirection? As in the saying attributed to W.C. Fields, “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bulls—.” [18]After all, magpies like shiny things, as do bower birds, so why not people, too?
Four instructive examples
Earlier in this article, I listed a number of approaches used in propaganda. The next examples focus on repetition propaganda, though aspects of the other types come to mind. These examples are all from this year (2026):
- An article about ocean heat content published on January 9
- The 2025 Copernicus report published on January 14
- The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) State of the Global Climate report 2025, which includes the World Energy Imbalance, published on March 23
- That global warming is accelerating as indicated in a February 24 publication
I include general comments in some examples. In others, I highlight a few concerns. My main intent is to illustrate propaganda being used. Due to space limitations, I did not include the text of all examples. These can be viewed by accessing the documents via the reference numbers and links.
- Ocean heat content
When someone posted on LinkedIn in early 2026 about a paper published in late 2025 titled, “Ocean Heat Content Sets Another Record in 2025”,[19] I left the following remarks in the comment section:
“Indiscreet question: Why didn’t you and your co-authors wait for all of the 2025 “information” to be compiled and then publish accordingly without certain projections (expectations)? One reads in the article: “Based on an assessment of January-November data from Berkeley Earth … and ERA5, GMST in 2025 is expected to approximately tie with 2023 as the second-warmest year …”[20]
That question remains unanswered today (August 2026), more than six months after being posed. Really, what was the all-fired rush to get the article published?
A related article from mainstream media (The Guardian) can be viewed here,[21] as can posts on social media here.[22] [23] [24] Repetition was obvious.
- 2025 Copernicus report published on January 14, 2026
This report was produced by the ECMWF Copernicus Climate Change Service,[25] which has a communications team of 10 people and is well-positioned to promulgate its information.[26]
There was a fair amount of media coverage, notably in mainstream articles from The Guardian[27], Reuters[28],Scientific American[29], Time Magazine[30], NBC[31], and CBC [32]. among others.
Additional social media posts from EU Climate Action[33]and Copernicus[34]can also be consulted. There are many more. Plenty of repetition.
World Meteorological Organization (WMO) State of the Global Climate report 2025 – World Energy Imbalance and more
- World Meteorological Organization (WMO) State of the Global Climate report 2025 – World Energy Imbalance and more
On March 23, 2026, the WMO released its State of the Global Climate report 2025, where it used the notion of World Energy Imbalance.[35] It stated:
-
- WMO State of Climate report confirms 2015-2025 hottest 11 years on record
- Earth’s energy imbalance is highest in 65-year record
- The ocean has been absorbing about 18 times the annual human energy use each year for the past two decades
- Extreme weather affects millions and costs billions[36]
In terms of their communication prowess, the WMO has 363 employees, of which 31 (or 8.5%) work in marketing.[37] They are well-staffed for propagating material.
I questioned the concept of “energy imbalance” in a post by the Climate Tech Venture Review related to the WMO report, in which I said:
“When you invoke the concept ‘energy imbalance’, it implies that there was a prolonged period of time when stability existed (i.e., when the energy was in balance). Can you share when this prolonged period of stability existed along with the factual data that shows this? Thanks in advance. Remember that a concept is not a fact.”[38]
Again, the post’s author has still not replied to this question I posed many months ago.
A related mainstream media article from CNN can be consulted here.[39] More social media posts from the UN and others can be referred to here.[40] [41] [42]Again, more repetition.
- Global warming is accelerating
A plethora of posts about the acceleration of global warming followed the publication of an article on February 4, 2006, “Global Warming Has Accelerated Significantly”.[43]
The article summarizes the author’s adjustment of temperature “data” by removing their estimates of the influence of El Niño, volcanism, and solar variation. In removing these factors, the authors explored whether their modelling could achieve a higher level of statistical confidence in inferring that human activity (principally CO2 emissions) is responsible for “faster warming over the last 10+ years than during any previous decade.”[44] The period referred to is 2015-24. Other natural factors were not considered.
Their approach in removing a few of the natural influences on temperature is interesting and seems to make sense at face value. This said, we must keep in mind that their study relies heavily on their selection of a few natural factors and their estimates of their impacts on climate (and removal of these impacts), for which the accuracy and quality are in question, as the authors openly admit (but related posts and articles by others do not mention):
“The main limitation of our method is that the removal of El Niño, volcanism, and solar variations is empirically based, but approximate and imperfect. For example, it is possible that the effect of El Niño on the 2023 and 2024 temperature is not completely removed.”[45]
This set of “approximate and imperfect” adjusted information was then run through models, which generated results, from which statistics were calculated and examined. The authors’ assert:
“The resulting adjusted and thus less “noisy” data show that there has been acceleration with over 98% confidence, with faster warming over the last 10+ years than during any previous decade.”[46]
While not explicitly stated, the reader is left with the impression that the acceleration in global temperature per this article is human-caused, particularly in light of the authors’ closing statement about their beliefs:
“Stopping this trend is in our hands: studies show that global warming will stop around the time humanity reaches zero CO2 emissions (Jenkins, Sanderson, et al., 2022), but it can hardly be reversed. In the current political climate, however, it is quite possible that warming may continue its fast pace or even accelerate further. This much is clear: if the warming rate of the past 10 years continues, the Paris Agreement 1.5°C warming limit will be breached by ∼2030.”[47]
It is important to keep in mind that there remains a great deal of uncertainty as this information is based on estimates derived from models whose input parameters were “approximate and imperfect” estimates.
Let’s circle back.
It seems rather “special” to select a 10-year period from 2015-24, of which the last two years had anomalously high temperatures, and which could be related to the January 15, 2022, Hunga Tonga–Hunga Haʻapai volcanic eruption in the south Pacific Ocean, that
“is the likely cause of the extraordinary warming, which in turn led to the occurrence of the unprecedented three SSW (sudden stratospheric warming) events.”[48]
Higher temperatures persisted into 2025, but with 2025 being lower than both 2023 and 2024. Other mentions of the heating effect of water vapour from this sizeable volcanic eruption can be found here.[49] We do not know how long this heating effect lasts.
The Hunga Tonga–Hunga Haʻapai volcanic eruption was not mentioned in their article. Applying simple mathematics, the period from its eruption on January 15, 2022, to December 31, 2024, inclusive represents approximately 30% of the 10-year period that ended at year-end 2024. Yes, 30% of the time period cited in their article. Not insignificant. The proverbial elephant in the atmosphere.
About the communication aspect, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, at which one of the authors works, has 13 people on its communications staff.[50]
Social media posts and articles about this can be accessed here, some of which had fear-mongering imagery with them,[51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58]with the last link being an article from a few days ago. A lot of repetition.
Summary
Propaganda is quite a broad topic, with many facets. I focused on the use of repetition propaganda and provided a few examples. These generally illustrate a common narrative/message within them. Some of the examples appeared to be generated using AI for the third-party posts on social media.
The timing of release of some of these examples is most interesting, particularly the first example on ocean heat content, which relied on estimates for the December 2025 values rather than waiting perhaps another couple of weeks to have the actual measurements.
I drew attention to some of the communication capacities of the organizations involved, which plays a significant role in the rapid, widespread dissemination of information. Naturally, fervent followers of these organizations, their publications, and the climate narrative also played a role in enhancing the propagation of this information on social media, be it directly from the source organizations, or from articles published by mainstream and other media.
If this were a television episode of “NCIS”, its main character, Leroy Jethro Gibbs, might be tempted to invoke Gibbs Rule #39: “There is no such thing as a coincidence.”[59]
While not addressed at length in this article, a plethora of recent articles about the pending El Niño natural climate pattern (and those trying to link it to human activities), forest fires (relabelled as “wildfires”) in the Northern Hemisphere this summer, and the summer heatwaves being experienced in parts of Europe are collectively omnipresent in media. Use of hyperbole and repetition in messaging abounds in this grouping. Of course, we do not wish to diminish any hardship experienced by anyone because of these events, but considering context is crucial when assessing the big picture.
Amidst these clouds of propaganda, one must keep on their critical thinking cap and their wits about them. The key is wading through the morass of information and differentiating what is fact from what is not. It Is not always easy to do, but it is important that we make the effort.
References:
Note that some of the weblinks such as Reuters require a subscription and others, such as LinkedIn and Facebook may require the reader to be a member/user (free) for access.
[1] Controlling perception – how images and colours are used to induce fear
[2] How to recognize when science becomes selective
[3] Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries
[4] Why We Seem to Prefer Bad News Over Good News
[5] Why We Seem to Prefer Bad News Over Good News
[6] 12 Types of Propaganda Techniques Used in Advertising
[7] How liars create the ‘illusion of truth’
[8] Hasher, L., Goldstein, D., and Toppino, T. 1977. Frequency and the Conference of Referential Validity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 107-112.
[9] Hasher, L., Goldstein, D., and Toppino, T. 1977. Frequency and the Conference of Referential Validity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 107-112.
[11] Why do we believe misinformation more easily when it’s repeated many times?
[12] Fazio, L.K., Nadia M. Brashier, N.M., Payne, B.K., and Marsh, E.J. 2015. Knowledge Does Not Protect Against Illusory Truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol. 144, No. 5, 993–1002.
[13] The Engineering of Consent (essay)
[14] The Engineering of Consent (essay)
[15] Propagandistic Narratives
[16] DeAngelo, Harry, and Curry, Judith A., 2025. “A critique of the apocalyptic climate narrative.” Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 37: 8–15.
[18] “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.”
[19] Pan, Y. Y., and Coauthors, 2026: Ocean heat content sets another record in 2025. Atmos. Sci.
[21] ‘Profound impacts’: record ocean heat is intensifying climate disasters, data shows
[22] Luis G. Lopez Lemus’ post
[24] From Quarks to Quasar’s Post
[25] Copernicus: 2025 was the third hottest year on record
[26] ESOTC 2025: Meet the team
[27] Human activity helped make 2025 third-hottest year on record, experts say
[28] 2025 among world’s three hottest years on record, WMO says
[29] 2025 Wasn’t the Hottest Year on Record. Earth Is Still Barreling to the Climate Brink
[30] 2025 Was the Third Hottest Year on Record, According to Europe’s Top Climate Experts
[31] 2025 was the third-hottest year ever recorded on Earth, data shows
2025 continues streak of hottest years ever recorded
[32] 2025 continues streak of hottest years ever recorded
[35] State of the Global Climate 2025
[36] State of the Global Climate 2025
[37] World Meteorological Organization
[38] Climate Tech Venture Review
[39] Analysis: The new UN climate report is boring … except when it’s not
[40] UN Environment Programme’s Post
[43] Foster, G., & Rahmstorf, S. (2026). Global warming has accelerated significantly. Geophysical Research Letters, 53, e2025GL118804.
[44] Foster, G., & Rahmstorf, S. (2026). Global warming has accelerated significantly. Geophysical Research Letters, 53, e2025GL118804.
[45] Foster, G., & Rahmstorf, S. (2026). Global warming has accelerated significantly. Geophysical Research Letters, 53, e2025GL118804.
[46] Foster, G., & Rahmstorf, S. (2026). Global warming has accelerated significantly. Geophysical Research Letters, 53, e2025GL118804.
[47] Foster, G., & Rahmstorf, S. (2026). Global warming has accelerated significantly. Geophysical Research Letters, 53, e2025GL118804.
[48] The extraordinary climate events of 2022-24
[49] Javier Vinós on the Hunga Tonga Eruption and its extraordinary Climate Effects
[50] Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
[51] Sachiko Arvelius, Ph.D.’s post
[58] Scientists detect a sharp acceleration in global warming
[59] NCIS’: Your Guide to Gibbs’ Rules
(Peter Dorrins – BIG Media Ltd., 2026 … with editing support from Patricia Scarr)
