Fake news threatens a climate literate world

T he year 2015 may be regarded as the most environmentally significant year in history: the Paris agreement on climate change and the 2030 agenda for sustainable development are two unprecedented international agreements that together provide a roadmap to achieve a low-carbon, climate-resilient world and to eradicate global poverty. However, given the implementation of these agreements is largely dependent upon environmental laws and climate policies enacted by the elected governments of the world, many argue that a global society of climate and environmentally literate citizens is critical to success—an argument seemingly strengthened by the severe amendments to scientific programmes proposed by the recently elected US administration. One route to knowledge empowerment is the wider dissemination of scientific information. UNESCO believes that open access to scientific literature is fundamental for scientific discovery, innovation and socio-economic development, and have highlighted it as key for realizing the majority of the 2030 sustainable development goals (http:// www.unesco.org/ new/en/communication-and-information/ access-to-knowledge/open-access-toscientific-information/). These sentiments are very much shared by the editorial team here at Nature Communications—all our articles have been freely available since January 2016 and are published under the least restrictive creative commons licence, allowing maximum re-use. However, is the provision of knowledge enough, particularly given the proliferation of misinformation in the modern-day culture of fake news? While the concept has gained new heights in the wake of the recent US election, fake news has plagued climate and environmental science for decades. Influential misinformation campaigns, selective media exposure, fabricated controversies, alternative facts and false media balance (Boykoff, M. T. & Boykoff, J. M. Glob. Environ. Chang. 14, 125–136 (2004)) have, in the view of many, manipulated scientific knowledge, sown seeds of confusion among the populace and threatened to derail environmental progress. The public’s awareness of the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change is a prime example of the consequences of scientific misinformation. With 97% of scientific experts in agreement that modern-day climate change is the result of human activity, the consensus is clear (Cook, J. et al. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024 (2013)). Yet, a 2016 survey by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication showed that more than half of American adults are unaware that a consensus exists, with 28% believing a great deal of uncertainty remains (http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/ visualizations-data/ycom-us-2016/). Half of US audiences and two-thirds in the UK admit to not noticing the originating news brand responsible for providing their social media content (https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/ sites/default/files/Digital-News-Report2016.pdf). Society’s preference for like-mindedness and the echo-chamber effect generated by social media platforms can further perpetuate the problem. This is particularly concerning given that, by the age of 18, 88% of young adults claim to receive their news through Facebook and other social media (http://www. OPEN