By: Joen Martinsen
Americans are being buried under an avalanche of misinformation and disinformation, enabling the abuse of power. The free press is crumbling. The truth is smothered by lies told for power and profit. It erodes a sense of unity and common purpose. It causes distrust and divisions. Participating in our democracy becomes exhausting and even disillusioning.
These sobering words, delivered by Joe Biden during his final message as the president of the United States, stand as a critique of the disinformation eroding trust in democracy and decision-making. As Donald Trump returns to power, this relentless onslaught of “alternative facts” creates a deeply unsettling backdrop for pressing global challenges—especially the climate crisis.
The Normalization of Climate Denialism
Climate denialism, the systematic rejection or distortion of established scientific evidence on climate change, has become a pervasive force undermining global efforts to address one of the most pressing challenges of our time. It is no longer confined to fringe ideologies; it has entered the political mainstream, influencing policies, public opinion, and international cooperation. This shift, fueled by disinformation and anti-scientific rhetoric, erodes trust in institutions, weakens collective resolve, and delays urgently needed action.
Under Trump's leadership, climate denialism has been normalized, becoming an entrenched feature of political discourse. Policies such as the rollback of the Paris Agreement and the promotion of fossil fuel expansion under the slogan "Drill, baby, drill!" reflect a stark regression in global climate cooperation.
The parallels with historical episodes of disinformation, such as the rejection of Philipp Semmelweis’ life-saving discovery of antiseptic handwashing, are striking. Like the resistance faced by Semmelweis, climate denialism thrives on a combination of misinformation, institutional inertia, and vested interests. In both cases, the consequences of rejecting evidence-based knowledge are profound, with lives lost and opportunities to prevent disaster squandered. The spread of disinformation, amplified by digital platforms, undermines public trust in science, confuses the public, and creates an environment where inaction becomes the default response.
Shifting Norms and Political Apathy
Trump’s rhetoric has fundamentally shifted societal norms. What was once regarded as fringe or extreme has now become central to political discourse. By 2025, climate skepticism is no longer the domain of contrarian think tanks or isolated policymakers—it has permeated the highest levels of political power. This normalization not only delays action but also fosters a sense of indifference. Movements like Fridays for Future, which once galvanized millions to demand urgent action, now seem relics of a bygone era, overshadowed by apathy and exhaustion.
The psychological toll of this political environment cannot be overstated. The relentless cycle of disinformation, amplified by social media, leaves citizens overwhelmed, desensitized, and increasingly disengaged. As leaders fail to address the climate crisis with the urgency it demands, public resolve weakens. The question, "Why care about the climate when our leaders don’t?" becomes pervasive, fostering a dangerous resignation.
The Real Danger: Stagnation
The most insidious impact of climate denialism is not just the outright rejection of science but the stagnation it enables. By framing climate action as secondary to economic pragmatism or national interests, denialism cements a political status quo where meaningful progress is perpetually deferred. In this landscape, the climate crisis is cast aside as less urgent than other crises, even as extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and resource shortages escalate.
The stakes of inaction are existential: planetary survival versus fleeting political and economic gain. Without a collective will to prioritize the climate crisis, denialism will continue to delay action, exacerbating the very challenges it seeks to downplay. Addressing this era of climate denialism requires more than countering disinformation—it demands a reinvigoration of trust in science, institutions, and the shared goal of a sustainable future. Without such efforts, the window for meaningful change may close, leaving the planet vulnerable to irreversible damage.
The Consequences of Disinformation
Trump’s relationship with climate denialism has deep roots, extending well before his time in office. From tweets dismissing the scientific consensus on climate change to policies that actively dismantled environmental protections, his track record reflects a deeply ingrained ideology. Trump’s skepticism toward climate science appears to be more than a mere rhetorical tool for political gain—it reveals a genuine conviction that has shaped his approach to environmental and energy policies. Examples include the following:
- November 6, 2012: Trump dismisses climate change as “a hoax created by China to harm American manufacturing.”[1]
- December 15, 2013: Amid snow in Israel and Egypt, he proclaims global warming “a con” unworthy of U.S. spending.[2]
- October 29, 2014: Trump cites polar ice levels and strong polar bear populations to refute global warming.[3]
- December 29, 2017: He mocks climate science, pointing to cold weather as evidence against warming.
- November 27, 2018: His administration questions a major U.N. climate report, casting doubt on global consensus.[4]
Today, an estimated 14.3% of Americans deny climate change, with the Midwest and South showing higher rates (around 20%). Though denial isn’t exclusive to Trump supporters, it aligns closely with other anti-science sentiments, such as vaccine skepticism. Republican voters disproportionately fall into this category, amplifying the reach and influence of Trump’s rhetoric. This helps to explain why a single tweet from Trump can carry more weight than the collective findings of thousands of peer-reviewed scientists. The climate denialist movement thrives on sowing distrust in experts and institutions, undermining the foundations of informed decision-making and weakening democratic resilience.
With the potential support of a congressional majority, a second Trump administration poses an even greater threat to climate action and scientific integrity. Armed with the experience of his first term and a more strategic approach to policymaking, Trump’s leadership could result in a deeper, more systematic infiltration of key institutions. Disinformation could become further embedded into the framework of governance, eroding public trust and undermining the role of evidence-based decision-making. Such an agenda would entrench climate denialism at the heart of policy, delaying meaningful action on climate change and leaving long-lasting scars on both domestic and global efforts to address the crisis.
The Path Ahead
The scientific community is bracing for the significant risks posed by Trump’s return to the presidency. His administration could escalate budget cuts to scientific research, purge federal agencies of environmental expertise, and launch ideological attacks on regulatory frameworks from the highest levels of government. Disinformation campaigns, already pervasive during his first term, are not only expected to continue but to intensify.
At stake is the very credibility of science. With Trump’s reelection comes the veneer of legitimacy as the leader of the United States, enabling him to amplify and normalize anti-scientific narratives on an unprecedented scale. This legitimization not only empowers climate denialism but also emboldens broader anti-science movements, undermining decades of progress in public understanding and trust in science.
The consequences of such a shift could reverberate globally. The normalization of climate denialism in one of the world’s most influential nations would profoundly shape international policymaking, stalling critical climate initiatives and emboldening other nations to deprioritize environmental action. At a time when escalating environmental crises demand urgent solutions, delays in action could exacerbate the very challenges humanity cannot afford to ignore. The stakes could not be higher: the survival of ecosystems, the stability of global climates, and the credibility of science itself hang in the balance
References
Byrne, G. (2020). Climate change denial as far-right politics: How abandonment of scientific method paved the way for Trump. Journal of Human Rights and the Environment, 11(1), 30-60. https://doi.org/10.4337/jhre.2020.01.02
Civillini, M., Rowling, M., & Lo, J. (2025, January 15). What Trump’s second term means for climate action in the US and beyond. Climate Change News. Retrieved from https://www.climatechangenews.com/2025/01/15/what-trump-second-term-means-for-climate-action-in-the-us-and-beyond/
Gounaridis, D., & Newell, J. P. (2024). The social anatomy of climate change denial in the United States. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 2097. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-50591-6
[1] https://x.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385
[2] https://x.com/realdonaldtrump/status/412017385345138688
[3] https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/527388136306143232
[4] https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/01/donald-trump-still-doesnt-believe-in-climate-change
