DOI: 10.60625/risj-89jy-c376

Executive summary ↑

In most of the countries covered, there is a significantly smaller share of younger people who have engaged with climate change news and information in the past week compared with older age groups. It is only in Pakistan and France that more than half of our respondents between 18 and 24 have consumed climate change news within the past week, whereas, at the lower end, only 17% of people in the same age group from the UK have accessed climate news. In contrast, the percentage of our respondents aged 55 or over who reported consuming climate change news within the past week ranges from 48–75%. Given how concerned many younger people are about climate change, this may at first seem like a surprising finding, but it is in fact in line with extensive research documenting much lower levels of news use among younger groups than older groups (see e.g. Newman et al. 2022). Some younger people are clearly very active both in terms of keeping across news and information about climate change and in terms of driving public debate and activist engagement on the issue. But many of their peers are not nearly as engaged.

In terms of gender, we find relatively small differences between men and women in seven of the eight countries, with the exception being Pakistan, where 62% of women compared with 50% of men from our sample reported having come across climate change news in the past week.

Not just the frequency of use but also the media people rely on varies by age. As Figure 4 shows, the use of these media for accessing news and information about climate change varies considerably with age. Television news is much more widely used by the over 55s, with nearly half (48%) across all eight countries saying that they used it for news and information about climate change in the past week. Newspapers and radio are also more widely used among the older age groups, whereas social media and messaging apps are more popular with those aged under 35. Accessing climate news online is equally popular among all age groups.

As with overall use, these patterns largely mirror those for news in general that we see in the Digital News Report, where, for news in general, as for news and information about climate change specifically, young people consume less, and have a greater preference for online sources, than older age groups.

Many different sources, including scientists, activists, politicians, and energy companies, feature in climate change news and information. To better understand their relative prominence, and what people think of them, we asked respondents who said they had seen climate change news and information in the past week whom they had seen commenting or were used as a source, reported in Figure 5. In all eight countries, scientists and/or environmental activists are the most prominent, with governments and politicians or political parties not far behind. A smaller number recall hearing from international institutions like the UN, along with energy companies and charities. In Brazil, India, and Pakistan the greater influence of social media and messaging apps is clear, as respondents are more likely to recall seeing celebrities and people they know personally commenting on news, something that is less likely to be part of mainstream media coverage. Although marginal in most countries, commenting by religious leaders is more prominent in India and Pakistan.

The relative prominence of different sources is one factor, and another is which sources people trust. This is important in part because trust, especially in scientists, experts, and environmental groups, is found to be associated with uptake of climate-friendly behaviour (Cologna and Siegrist 2020).

News media are generally in the middle of the range of sources we ask people to rate. They are more trusted than energy companies and politicians, but less so than scientists, and in many cases less so than international institutions such as the UN. On average across the eight countries covered, about half of respondents say they trust news media as a source of news and information about climate change.

Across all the eight countries covered, a clear majority of respondents trust scientists, often large majorities. While there is some variation (see Figure 6), in almost every country scientists are the most highly and broadly trusted source to feature in climate change news and information. At the other end are energy companies and politicians or political parties, which few say they trust. The pattern is less clear for environmental activists, who are not seen as a very trusted source in France (28%), Japan (31%), Germany (37%), and the UK (42%), although 50% or more of respondents in the USA, Brazil, India, and Pakistan say they tend to trust environmental activists.

Breaking down respondents by their self-reported political orientation (left versus right), we see not only some differences but also some important commonalities when it comes to trust. Figure 7 offers key insights for select sources. First, political differences in how much respondents trust the news media and political actors vary across countries, with no uniform pattern. Second, in most cases, fewer on the political right say they trust environmental activists and scientists. Third, importantly, despite these differences, in almost every country, of those on the political right, a clear majority say they trust scientists as sources of climate change news and information. The exception is Japan, where scientists are trusted by about half of those on the right and the left. Also, close to half of those on the right in the US trust scientists for news and information about climate change – but trust on the left is much higher.

2. News avoidance ↑

Despite widespread public recognition of how climate change is a threat to people all over the planet, our research documents how respondents sometimes actively avoid news and information about climate change and helps shed light on why.

As Figure 8 shows, selective news avoidance, where people actively try to avoid news often, even if they also continue to follow it at least some of the time, is almost as widespread for news on climate change as it is for news in general. The figures range from 10% in Japan to 41% in India. We can also see that there are almost no differences in the extent of general news avoidance and climate change news avoidance, except in Pakistan, where the difference between those who actively avoid news in general and climate change news is 9 percentage points. Elsewhere, the difference is less than 5 percentage points, suggesting that many people who avoid news in general avoid all types of news regardless of topic.

Previous research (e.g. Toff and Palmer 2018) has documented gender differences when it comes to news avoidance, specifically that women are significantly more likely than men to avoid the news. When it comes to climate change news, our data show a mixed picture (see Figure 9). A smaller proportion of female respondents in India, Pakistan, France, and Japan said they avoid news in general compared to men, but the differences are too small to be statistically significant. However, with regard to climate change news avoidance, we can see in the corresponding figure that women are less likely to say they avoid it in the UK, USA, and Germany.

In addition to gender, we have also compared news avoidance between younger and older respondents. Similar to the findings highlighted in our 2022 Digital News Report, the current study also shows that a higher percentage of young respondents in our sample tend to avoid both news in general and climate change news. However, there are variations for each type of news between countries, as can be seen in Figure 10. Across all countries, the average difference between young and old for avoiding news in general is 13 percentage points, whereas for climate change it is 9 percentage points. Moreover, in Brazil and Japan, the difference between younger and older respondents is small (5 percentage points or less), indicating that age is not a hugely important factor in these countries.

When those respondents who do so are asked why they actively avoid climate change news, the most commonly named reasons are that news related to climate change is seen as untrustworthy (27%), that respondents feel there is nothing new in the news related to climate change (27%), that people feel climate change news negatively affects their mood (26%), and that they feel worn out by the amount of climate change news (25%) (see Figure 11). There are different motivations for selective news avoidance, and no one editorial change or new journalistic approach can address all of them in one go. But it is worth noting that, beyond those that seem tied to politics (e.g. perceptions of bias), several of the most frequently mentioned reasons have to do with exhaustion (e.g. ‘worn out’, ‘too much’), limited value (‘nothing new’, ‘nothing I can do’), and anxiety (‘a negative effect on my mood’). The similar percentages for different reasons in all markets denote that people express a mix of complex and diverse motives for avoiding climate change news. Moreover, the national context matters. For example, in the USA, where climate change is a highly partisan and contentious issue (Tyson and Kennedy 2021), 39% of respondents – more than in any other country – say they avoid climate change news because they find it to be untrustworthy.

3. Misinformation on climate change ↑

Obviously, not all the news and information that people come across is credible and trustworthy, and some of it might be misleading or outright false. Despite a clear scientific consensus, climate change misinformation persists, and research suggests its spread continues to undermine public support for climate action (Biddlestone et al. 2022; Zhou and Shen 2021).

To better understand public perception of this problem, we have collected data on public concern regarding climate change misinformation, people’s perception of it, and the frequency with which they come across it from different sources and across both online and offline platforms. It is important to reiterate here that this is based on survey data, so it (a) relies on people’s own perception of what they see as misinformation, and (b) their recollection of examples of such. It does not provide an objective measure of actual exposure to demonstrably false and misleading identified examples of misinformation.

As Figure 12 shows, overall, large majorities of our respondents in every country covered are at least somewhat concerned about whether the information they come across (whether online or offline) is false or misleading, both for news in general and for news and information about climate change. In every other country except in India and Pakistan, more people are concerned about misinformation related to news in general, though the difference between the two proportions is small, at less than or equal to 5 percentage points across eight countries.

Beyond general concern, large numbers of respondents also say they have come across climate change news or information they believe is false or misleading, though it is a minority who say that they see such content all the time or often. As Figure 13 shows, there are some differences across countries. For example, around one-third of respondents in India (38%), Brazil (36%), and the USA (33%) reported coming across climate change misinformation all the time or often. In contrast, only 16% of people in Japan reported seeing misinformation on climate change all the time or often.

When it comes to where people are encountering news and information about climate change that they believe to be false, to some extent we see a similar picture to where people get news and information about climate change generally. Television and online (including on social media or using messaging apps) are the most frequently mentioned. Whereas people in some countries rely more on television for news about climate change, people are slightly more likely to associate false information with online use, and within that, social media use. However, the figures vary by country. As Figure 14 shows, whilst just 12–14% say they saw news and information about climate change they believe to be false while online (including on social media or using messaging apps) in France, Germany, Japan, and the UK, self-reported exposure was much higher in Brazil (23%), India (37%), Pakistan (24%), and the USA (24%). Newspapers and radio are much less commonly cited than other sources everywhere.

If we split the data by age, we see that younger people are slightly more likely to think they see false information about climate change online, and older people think they are more likely to see it on television. However, this probably tells us less about people’s perceptions of misinformation than it does about more general patterns of media use among different age groups.

For those who say they saw false or misleading information about climate change in news media, social media, or messaging apps in the past week, we also asked them who was used as the source (Figure 15). In most countries, people most frequently mentioned politicians, political parties, and governments. However, the differences between these and most of the other sources on the list are not statistically significant. In most countries, fewer respondents mentioned religious leaders, but this is because they are rarely used as sources in some countries. Despite being used relatively frequently by the news media as sources of information about climate change, in most countries people did not see charities as a particularly common source of false or misleading information.

4. Public perceptions on climate news ↑

When it comes to assessing the role of news media in addressing climate change, more than one-third from our total sample believe that it is doing too little. This figure is lower than that for politicians or political parties (48%) and citizens (48%), as well as for governments (46%) and energy companies (44%), but not as low as that for environmental activists and scientists, who fare better, as only 22% and 26% of participants believe they are doing too little to address climate change.

We also asked respondents about how climate change news makes them feel (Figure 17). Of all the emotional responses we listed, across all eight countries respondents most often agreed that consuming climate change news made them feel concerned (63%), worried (61%), informed (59%), or alarmed (57%). Respondents were less likely to say they felt helpless (45%), stressed (44%), angry (44%), or motivated (42%). Just 26% said that consuming climate change news left them feeling indifferent. Climate change news clearly elicits both positive and negative emotions, with broadly similar patterns across countries.

To move beyond topline emotional responses, we asked respondents a series of questions about whether climate change news makes them feel empowered or disempowered (Figure 18). Here, we see more consistent agreement with the idea that consuming climate news helps people feel more empowered in several ways. For example, the percentage of respondents agreeing that news related to climate change prompts them to seek more information about it ranges from 76% in Pakistan and India to 49% in the UK and France. Similar proportions of participants in our study agree that climate change news gives them accurate information and helps them to know what to do about it. By comparison, a relatively lower percentage of people agree that the news on climate change leaves them confused or depressed, contains conflicting views, or feels irrelevant.

We obtained additional insights when classifying these responses according to the frequency with which people consume news about climate change, based on the data from Q5A (see Figure 1).² Figure 19 shows that those who consume climate change news more frequently are more likely to agree that they find it empowering in some way, either because it helps them know what to do in response, prompts them to consume more information, or gives them more accurate information. Frequent climate change news users are also less likely to feel that climate news contains conflicted views, leaves them confused, or is not relevant to them.

There are country differences here. Generally speaking, in France, Germany, Japan, the UK, and the USA, there is a weaker association between more frequent climate change news use and a feeling of empowerment, though the association between confusion, conflicting views, and irrelevance is clearer everywhere. Weekly climate change news users are as likely to say it makes them feel depressed as people who encounter it less often than once a month. However, feeling depressed is an understandable reaction, given the emphasis on the societal dimension in climate change coverage, illustrating how humans are affected by it. Finally, we should keep in mind that people might intentionally consume less climate change news precisely because they believe it to be confusing, conflicting, and irrelevant, or consume more of it because they find it empowering. It is not possible to know for sure without data over time.

A recent study regarding climate change attitudes in 192 countries described how people in most of the countries included in our own study (excluding India and Pakistan) tend to have moderate to high knowledge of climate change (Leiserowitz et al. 2022). However, the study does not say whether exposure to climate change news plays any role in making them more aware of climate change.

We explore differences between frequent and infrequent climate change news consumers in terms of whether they think they know a ‘moderate amount’ or ‘a lot’ about various aspects of climate change knowledge (Figure 20). Of course, this does not measure people’s actual knowledge of climate change, but rather how much they think they know, and how much confidence they have in that knowledge, something that may be important for understanding their climate change responses.

The results of our data analysis indicate that people who consume climate change on a weekly basis are more likely to think they know ‘what climate change is’, ‘the claimed link between climate change and extreme weather events’, ‘the claimed link between greenhouse gas emissions and rising temperatures’, and the ‘difference between climate change and global warming’. Across all eight countries, over half of weekly climate news consumers think they know ‘a moderate amount’ or ‘a lot’ about each of these. However, less than half of those who consume climate news less often than once a month say the same. This lends some additional support to the claim that individuals’ knowledge about climate change is at least in part based on news media coverage (e.g. Schäfer and Painter 2020).

However, we also see that only around 40% say that they know at least a moderate amount about ‘global policy initiatives to tackle climate change’ and their ‘government’s key policies on climate change’. This 40% figure is roughly the same for both infrequent climate news users and those who consume it on a weekly basis. This highlights that people think they know relatively little about domestic and international climate policy, and that more frequent news users feel no more knowledgeable. This could be an opportunity for the news media to educate their readers on climate governance, should they wish to do so. This is a particularly important opportunity to highlight because it goes well beyond conveying the scientific consensus to helping people understand policies, much as news media might aspire to do in other areas of their coverage.

5. Public attitudes towards climate change and actions ↑

There is extensive literature on public attitudes towards climate change (Poortinga et al. 2019). However, the scholarship on this suffers from imbalances, such as the abundance of studies on the subject originating from the Western nations, which leaves much unknown about the progression of public understanding of climate change beyond the USA and Europe (Capstick et al. 2014).

Since our study includes data from Pakistan, India, and Brazil, countries that seldom become the subject of such empirical inquiry, we have an opportunity to illustrate the similarities and differences in public attitudes related to climate change in these countries compared with Western countries.

Accordingly, we listed 19 issues and asked respondents to identify the single most important issue they think their country is facing. In all countries it is evident that people regard the cost-of-living crisis and economy as the most important right now (see Figure 21). For about half of the respondents from the UK, cost of living is the most important issue, whereas only 7% felt the same about climate change. Similarly, almost a third of our respondents in Germany (32%) and France (31%) reported cost of living as the most important issue. A somewhat higher percentage of people from France and Germany than other countries think climate change is an important issue their countries are presently facing.

In contrast, 13% of respondents from Pakistan, the highest among the eight countries, consider climate change the most important issue. The high percentage could be the result of recent floods in Pakistan, because the present survey was conducted amid flooding that was frequently attributed in the news media as a consequence of climate change. Also, only 17% of respondents in Pakistan reported cost of living as an issue despite the country going through economic challenges; this could be due to the nature of the sample from Pakistan, which is more affluent and employed with above national average wages. Just 3% in Japan and 2% in Brazil consider climate change to be the most important issue right now. However, in the case of Brazil, this could be because fieldwork took place during the 2022 general election.

Next, we asked people to express how worried they are about the impact of climate change on people all over the world. In line with various past surveys that recorded similar responses, our study also found that a significant proportion, ranging between 75% in the USA and 89% in India, say that they are either ‘somewhat’, ‘very’, or ‘extremely’ worried about the impact of climate change on people all over the world (see Figure 22). We also asked people how worried they are about the impact of climate change on the planet, which yielded very similar results.

When we split the responses by political leaning in Figure 23, we observe differences in some countries regarding people’s level of concern. Typically, those on the left are more likely to say they are worried about the impacts of climate change – by as much as 32 percentage points in the USA. However, it is equally important to note that, regardless of political leaning, more than half of our respondents in all countries said that they are worried about climate impacts. Climate change is clearly a polarising issue, particularly in some countries, but, at least in our data, a majority of those on the right are worried about the threat.

Since tackling climate change is a collective responsibility, we asked respondents about their willingness to take various actions, specifically aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The results indicate, across countries, that most people express at least some willingness to take certain actions (or think they are already doing as much as they can). But, as Figure 24 shows, people are willing to do some things more than others. Large majorities say they are willing to throw away less food, recycle, and use less energy. There are lower levels of willingness to fly less, eat less meat, and switch to an electric vehicle. And all of this varies by country.

However, we do find a reasonably consistent relationship between frequency of climate change news use and willingness to take steps to mitigate climate change. Across all eight countries, people who use climate news on a weekly basis are slightly more likely to say they will take some of the more popular actions, like recycling, throwing away less food, and using less energy. However, for the less popular actions, like flying less, switching to renewables for household energy, or eating less meat, there are no real differences by climate change news use. It may be that frequent news users are aware of these steps, and understand the benefits, but have decided against it for other reasons. For some people in some countries, some actions we listed are simply not possible.

The scope of climate change impacts is so widespread that changing people’s habits alone will not be sufficient. Therefore, unless governments take the necessary steps, humanity will not be able to avert the impending climate catastrophe. Thus, we attempted to gauge public opinion around government action (Figure 25). Results at the aggregate level show that the proportion who agree that their government ‘is paying enough attention to climate change’, ‘is acting in line with climate science’, ‘is doing everything it can to protect the planet for future generations’, and ‘is doing enough to help avoid a “climate catastrophe”’ range from 20% to 40% in most of the countries covered. In India, 60% to 70% of respondents say they agree with their government’s actions, but elsewhere it is clear that many people think that their governments could and should be doing more.

When we split the responses by news use (Figure 25), we see that, across all eight countries, people who use climate news on a weekly basis are even less likely to agree that their governments are doing enough. In many countries, journalists see it as their job to hold governments to account over their record on key issues, and there is evidence here that people who engage with climate news more frequently adopt a more critical view of those in power. Whether this in turn results in swifter climate action is a separate question.

Conclusion ↑

Our research suggests that across eight very different countries, on average about half the respondents in the countries covered feel reasonably well served by how news media deal with climate. They follow the coverage regularly, many of them trust news coverage of the topic (certainly more than they trust energy companies and politicians), and they feel that the coverage empowers them in many ways.

A large majority of our respondents across all eight countries recognise that almost all climate scientists believe that climate change is caused by humans, and an even larger majority say they are worried about the impact climate change is having on people all over the world. This is true both for those who follow climate change news and information on a regular basis and for the wider public.

Overall, those who follow climate change come across a wide variety of different sources featured in the coverage, including scientists, political actors, energy companies, and environmental activists. It is important, however, to recognise that respondents do not see all these different sources as equally credible. Across all countries, scientists are highly and broadly trusted, whereas political actors and energy companies are regarded with considerable scepticism. In terms of trust, news media themselves are generally in the middle of the range of sources we asked people to rate; they are more trusted than energy companies and politicians, but less so than scientists, and in many cases less so than international institutions such as the UN.

Beyond these overall patterns, we also find important variations. Some are expected, such as that young people rely more on online media, older people more on television, and people on the political right often approach climate change differently from those on the left. Others are, at first glance, surprising. Fewer young people engage with climate change news and information than older people, and a clear majority on the political right trust scientists and are concerned about the impact climate change is having on people all over the world.

Among those who follow climate change news and information less frequently, or say they actively try to avoid it, the reasons are multiple and complex. Some of the most frequently mentioned reasons for avoiding climate news have to do with exhaustion (e.g. ‘worn out’, ‘too much’), limited value (‘nothing new’, ‘nothing I can do’), and anxiety (‘a negative effect on my mood’). Many respondents, including those who do not engage with it on a regular basis, say that news helps give them accurate information about climate change and helps them to know what to do about it, but among those who engage less frequently, a significantly larger share say that they find climate change news and information confusing and irrelevant.

If news media can address or overcome these concerns, they have a chance to stand out against a dark backdrop of widespread concern over whether the information people come across (whether online or offline) is false or misleading, especially as many are sceptical of political actors. Reaching beyond the already well-served parts of the public is an important opportunity to help a wider range of people build a better understanding of where we are with climate change, the implications, and what we can do in response, most importantly in terms of domestic and international policy.

Here, the findings are mixed. On the one hand, it is not clear that current climate change coverage helps people to feel they have a better understanding of their own government’s policy responses to climate change, or of global policy initiatives to tackle climate change. At least we see no difference across frequency of news use. Given how profoundly political the issue is, and how essential policy is to an effective response, editors and journalists may want to consider how to respond to this finding. On the other hand, it is clear that news coverage, with its imperfections, plays an important accountability function. At least those who follow climate change news more closely tend to judge current political responses more harshly (as many experts do when assessing policy responses against stated goals) and are more likely to reject the idea that their governments are doing enough to help avoid a climate catastrophe.

Footnotes

References ↑

• Arlt, D., Hoppe, I., Wolling, J. 2011. 'Climate Change and Media Usage: Effects on Problem Awareness and Behavioural Intentions', International Communication Gazette 73, 45–63.
• Beiser-McGrath, L. F., Bernauer, T. 2021. ‘Current Surveys May Underestimate Climate Change Skepticism Evidence from List Experiments in Germany and the USA’, PLOS ONE 16, e0251034.
• Biddlestone, M., Azevedo, F., van der Linden, S. 2022. ‘Climate of Conspiracy: A Meta-Analysis of the Consequences of Belief in Conspiracy Theories about Climate Change’, Current Opinion in Psychology 46, 101390.
• Capstick, S., Whitmarsh, L., Poortinga, W., Pidgeon, N., Upham, P. 2014. ‘International Trends in Public Perceptions of Climate Change over the Past Quarter Century’, WIREs Climate Change 6, 35–61.
• Carmichael, J. T., Brulle, R. J. 2016. ‘Elite Cues, Media Coverage, and Public Concern: An Integrated Path Analysis of Public Opinion on Climate Change, 2001–2013’, Environmental Politics 26, 232–252.
• Carvalho, A. 2010. ‘Media(ted) Discourses and Climate Change: A Focus on Political Subjectivity and (Dis)engagement’, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 1, 172–179.
• Cologna, V., Siegrist, M. 2020. ‘The Role of Trust for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Behaviour: A Meta-Analysis’, Journal of Environmental Psychology 69, 101428. 8
• Eckstein, D., Künzel, V., Schäfer, L. 2021. ‘Global Climate Risk Index 2021. Who Suffers Most from Extreme Weather Events? Weather-Related Loss Events in 2019 and 1999 to 2019’, Germanwatch. (Accessed 12 November 2022).
• Geiger, N., Swim, J. K. 2016. ‘Climate of Silence: Pluralistic Ignorance as a Barrier to Climate Change Discussion’, Journal of Environmental Psychology 47: 79–90.
• Goldberg, M. H., Gustafson, A., Ballew, M. T., Rosenthal, S. A., Leiserowitz, A. 2019. ‘A Social Identity Approach to Engaging Christians in the Issue of Climate Change’, Science Communication 41, 442–463.
• Larson, R. B., Kinsey, J. 2019. ‘Culture and Sampling Issues With “Green” Attitude Research’, Social Marketing Quarterly 25, 91–106.
• Leiserowitz, A., Carman, J., Buttermore, N., Neyens, L., Rosenthal, S., Marlon, J., Schneider, J., Mulcahy, K. 2022. International Public Opinion on Climate Change, 2022. Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and Data for Good at Meta.
• Moser, S. C. 2010. ‘Communicating Climate Change: History, Challenges, Process and Future Directions’, WIREs Climate Change 1, 31–53.
• Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Robertson, C. T., Eddy, K., Nielsen, R. K. 2022. Digital News Report 2022. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
• Poortinga, W., Whitmarsh, L., Steg, L., Böhm, G., Fisher, S. 2019. ‘Climate Change Perceptions and their Individual-Level Determinants: A Cross-European Analysis’, Global Environmental Change 55, 25–35.
• Schäfer, M. S., Painter, J. 2020. ‘Climate Journalism in a Changing Media Ecosystem: Assessing the Production of Climate Change-Related News Around the World’, WIREs Climate Change 12.
• Toff, B., Palmer, R. A. 2018. ‘Explaining the Gender Gap in News Avoidance: “News-Is-for-Men” Perceptions and the Burdens of Caretaking’, Journalism Studies 20, 1563–1579.
• Tyson, A., Kennedy, B. 2021. ‘Two-Thirds of Americans Think Government Should Do More on Climate’, Pew Research Center Science & Society, 12 July.
• Weingart, P., Engels, A., Pansegrau, P. 2016. ‘Risks of Communication: Discourses on Climate Change in Science, Politics, and the Mass Media’, Public Understanding of Science 9, 261–283.
• World Bank Group. 2021. ‘Climate Risk Country Profile Brazil’, Climate Knowledge Portal.
• World Health Organization. 2022. ‘Health Must be Front and Centre in the COP27 Climate Change Negotiations’, WHO News, November 6.
• Zhou, Y., Shen, L. 2021. ‘Confirmation Bias and the Persistence of Misinformation on Climate Change’, Communication Research 49, 500–523.