COVID-19 and Climate Change: The pandemic led to a temporary reduction in carbon dioxide emissions due to lockdowns and reduced industrial activity. However, as economies reopened, emissions recovered quickly, highlighting the need for resilient climate policies that can withstand sudden disruptions. A study compared the projected heat-related deaths with COVID-19 deaths in 38 cities worldwide and found that in half of these cities, heat-related deaths could exceed annual COVID-19 deaths in less than ten years (at a global warming of +3.0 °C compared to pre-industrial times). These findings emphasize the urgency of considering the impacts of climate change as an immediate and serious threat to human health ^1^.

Extreme Weather Events: The frequency and intensity of extreme weather events such as hurricanes, wildfires, and heatwaves continue to increase. The 2021 Atlantic hurricane season was one of the most active in history, with numerous named storms and hurricanes. These events lead to massive economic damages and losses, emphasizing the need to invest in climate protection. The economic costs of these events are enormous and burden global economies significantly ^1^.

Climate Policies and Agreements: The Paris Agreement remained a central point, with countries submitting updated nationally determined contributions (NDCs) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The COP26 climate summit in Glasgow 2021 was a significant event where countries reaffirmed their commitments to combat climate change. Critics argued, however, that the outcomes were insufficient to address the scale of the crisis. The political and economic interests behind these agreements often prioritize short-term gains over long-term climate goals ^2^.

Climate Misinformation and Its Impacts: Climate misinformation has become a significant concern, encompassing both intentional and unintentional falsehoods. A study examined discourses on climate change across several social media platforms and found that the relative engagement with unreliable sources of climate misinformation grew over five years (2018–2022). This shows how social media platforms function as ideological echo chambers where falsehoods can proliferate unchecked. The economic exploitation of misinformation by interest groups that benefit from public uncertainty is a major driver of this development ^3^.

Social Media and Climate Misinformation: Social media platforms have been identified as significant spreaders of climate misinformation. These platforms often act as ideological echo chambers where falsehoods can proliferate unchecked. Oil interests have exploited this by promoting misleading information that aligns with their agendas. YouTube has taken steps, for example, to limit the monetization of content that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change. However, this has not entirely stopped the spread of misleading content on these platforms. The algorithms of these platforms tend to favor polarizing and extreme content, further promoting the spread of misinformation ^3,4^.

Scientific Disinformation Strategies: A comprehensive study examined how false or misleading scientific content proliferates across social and traditional media. It evaluated strategies to counteract the spread of such misinformation, including the use of AI-driven tools for early detection and the refinement of fact-checking strategies. The study also highlighted the importance of inoculation theory to increase public resilience against misinformation, although it noted that cognitive complexity as a countermeasure is relatively underexplored. The economic interests behind the spread of misinformation are often powerful and well-funded ^5,6^.

Controversial Climate Reports: More than 85 scientists criticized a current report from the U.S. Department of Energy for containing errors and misrepresenting climate science. The report was seen as an attempt to downplay the severity of climate change and justify inaction. The DOE’s Climate Working Group, consisting of scientists and economists questioning the scientific consensus on climate change, was accused of portraying global warming as beneficial to support their arguments. These reports are often linked to political and economic interests that benefit from public uncertainty ^7,8^.

Climate Change Denial and Political Influence: The Trump administration’s efforts to rescind the 2009 endangerment finding, which concluded that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health, highlighted the ongoing political influence on climate science. This move was part of a broader strategy to undermine public confidence in climate science. There are at least 32 ongoing lawsuits in the United States seeking damages against the fossil fuel industry for spreading climate change denial despite knowing the risks. These lawsuits show how economic interests can influence the scientific debate ^9,8^.

Podcasts and Climate Misinformation: Popular podcasts like “The Joe Rogan Experience” have been criticized for spreading climate misinformation. Joe Rogan’s false claims about the climate crisis, which he repeatedly aired on his show, have frustrated scientists who authored the research he misrepresented. These podcasts often use their reach to promote economic interests, further driving the spread of misinformation ^4,10^.

ExxonMobil’s Climate Report: ExxonMobil’s 2025 climate report was criticized for overstating the efficacy of carbon capture and using propaganda to embellish their climate action efforts. The report was seen as a distraction from meaningful climate action rather than a roadmap for addressing the issue. ExxonMobil invests massively in lobbying and public relations to maintain its image as an environmentally friendly company while continuing to invest in fossil fuels ^11,12^.

Other Scientific Topics Presented as Scientific:#

Hydroxychloroquin Controversy: Early in the pandemic, hydroxychloroquine was promoted by some as a potential treatment for COVID-19, despite limited scientific evidence. Subsequent studies showed it was ineffective and potentially harmful. The drug was often prescribed in higher doses than usual for other conditions, increasing the risk of side effects. The promotion of hydroxychloroquin was often linked to political and economic interests that benefited from public uncertainty ^2^.

Ivermectin Debate: Ivermectin, a drug typically used to treat parasitic infections, was also promoted as a treatment for COVID-19. Although some studies suggested potential benefits, the scientific community largely concluded that the evidence was insufficient to support its use for COVID-19. A February 2025 review of randomized controlled trials concluded that ivermectin is ineffective in treating COVID-19, both as treatment and prophylaxis. The promotion of ivermectin was often linked to economic interests that benefited from public uncertainty ^2,7^.

Vaccine Hesitancy and Misinformation: There was a significant amount of misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines, including claims about their safety and efficacy. Scientific organizations and health authorities worked to combat these myths and promote vaccination. The spread of vaccine hesitancy was amplified by social media influencers and brands that spread misinformation for economic gain. The economic interests behind vaccine hesitancy are substantial, as they are often linked to alternative “treatments” and products ^2,6^.

Research on Long COVID: The study of long COVID, the persistent symptoms experienced by some COVID-19 patients, gained attention. Although the phenomenon is recognized, the underlying mechanisms and treatments are still subjects of ongoing research. The economic impacts of long COVID are significant, with estimates suggesting billions of dollars in lost productivity and healthcare costs. Research on long COVID is often linked to economic interests that benefit from public uncertainty ^2^.

Air Quality and Health: The pandemic led to increased awareness of the relationship between air quality and health. Studies showed that air pollution could exacerbate COVID-19 outcomes, underscoring the need for cleaner air policies. The economic benefits of improving air quality, including reduced healthcare costs and increased productivity, were highlighted during this time. Improving air quality is often linked to economic interests that benefit from cleaner technologies and products ^2^.

Conclusion: The pandemic highlighted both the importance of scientific rigor and the challenges posed by misinformation. While significant progress was made in researching and combating climate change, the scientific community also had to contend with various claims and treatments that lacked robust evidence. It is crucial to follow the science and ensure that policies and treatments are based on solid scientific foundations. The economic interests driving misinformation underscore the need for greater transparency and accountability in scientific communication and policymaking.