Climate change denial thrives on manipulated language and disinformation. A new study confirms these California fires were significantly more likely due to global warming, yet denial persists through cherry-picked data and misinformation.
Words wield power, and nowhere more so than in the animated discourse on environmental crises. As the recent California wildfires have tragically illustrated, the consequences of misinterpreting or dismissing climate terminology are anything but abstract.
Climate change: the importance of getting the language right
Disinformation is rampant in today’s world of social media and so-called authoritative media commentary, which is often anything but expert. It’s time the mainstream media dissected the language that fuels denial and confronts the clear evidence linking our planet’s escalating disasters to human-induced climate change.
The words ‘weather’, ‘meteorology’ and ‘climate change’ are not synonyms and understanding the latter as a comprehensive term highlights the complex and multifaceted nature of the challenges we face. Climate change is not just about temperatures rising; it’s about the cascading effects on weather systems, ecosystems and human societies – like the California wildfires. Terms like ‘climate crisis’ or ‘climate emergency’ have emerged to underscore the urgency of the situation, emphasising that these changes are not distant or abstract but immediate threats requiring prompt action. This evolution of the language related to climate change reflects our growing understanding of these phenomena.
In addition, the terms ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ are often used interchangeably; in fact they convey different aspects of our planet’s environmental shifts. ‘Global warming’ refers specifically to the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases. In contrast, ‘climate change’ encompasses this warming but also includes the broader range of changes affecting our planet’s climate systems, such as alterations in precipitation patterns, increased frequency of extreme weather events and rising sea levels.
How climate change deniers get it wrong
By definition, a climate change denier is a person or entity that rejects, downplays or misrepresents the current overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and is primarily caused by human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.
Dismissing such expressions of the crisis as mere rhetoric ignores the scientific consensus and the lived experiences of communities in all parts of the world already impacted by climate-related disasters. Focussing solely on ‘global warming’ can lead to oversimplification, allowing sceptics to argue against the reality of climate change by pointing, for example, to localised cold weather events such as snowstorms or cold snaps.
This distinction is crucial and is one often lost on the conspiracy theory and denier community who ply their views freely and without reference or accountability on social media platforms such as X (formerly Twitter).
Climate change deniers operate in different ways
Climate change deniers typically fall into one or more of the following categories:
- Outright deniers: those who claim that climate change is a hoax, a conspiracy, or not happening at all, often ignoring or distorting scientific evidence.
- Minimisers: individuals who acknowledge that the climate is changing but argue that it is part of a natural cycle, downplaying the role of human activities.
- Delay tacticians: people who accept that climate change is real and human-caused but argue against immediate action, claiming that solutions are too expensive, ineffective or unnecessary.
- Cherry-pickers: those who selectively use data or specific weather events (such as a cold winter) to argue against long-term climate trends.
- Misinformation spreaders: individuals, corporations or organisations (often linked to fossil fuel industries or politically motivated groups) that deliberately spread misleading or false information to sow doubt and delay climate action.
Many climate change deniers rely on disinformation, pseudoscience and economic or political motivations rather than peer-reviewed research to support their views. Their influence, particularly through online media and political lobbying, has significantly delayed meaningful action on climate change, worsening its consequences.
California wildfires prove to be a result of climate change
The devastating wildfires that swept through Los Angeles in January 2025 serve as a stark illustration of the tangible impacts of climate change.
A new study by World Weather Attribution analysed the conditions leading to these fires and found compelling evidence of human-induced climate influences. It revealed that the hot, dry conditions preceding the fires were approximately 35% more likely due to the effects of climate change. Additionally, the region experienced significantly reduced rainfall in the months leading up to the fires, a trend also linked to global warming. These factors combined to create an environment primed for wildfires, which were then exacerbated by the Santa Ana winds – strong, dry gusts that blow from inland regions towards the coast.
Historically, the arrival of winter rains in California would dampen vegetation and reduce fire risk during the Santa Ana wind season. The study also noted a troubling shift: the wildfire season is extending, and the anticipated rains are diminishing. This prolongation of dry conditions into periods traditionally considered safer underscores the evolving nature of climate-related threats.
The fires resulted in at least 28 fatalities and destroyed over 16,000 structures, marking them among the most destructive in Southern California’s history. Critically, the study emphasised that while natural factors like the Santa Ana winds have always played a role in Southern California’s fire regime, the increasing frequency and severity of such fires cannot be explained without accounting for human-induced climate change. This aligns with broader scientific consensus that links rising global temperatures to more extreme and unpredictable weather patterns.
Our survival depends on addressing misinformation
The language we use to discuss environmental issues shapes our understanding and, consequently, our actions, and so is important.
Misinterpretations or deliberate distortions of terms like ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ help foster complacency or denial despite empirical evidence, such as with the recent California wildfires, demonstrating that the impacts of climate change are real, immediate and devastating.
It’s imperative to move beyond semantic debates and acknowledge the urgency of the crisis we face. The time for action is now, guided by clear understanding and informed by undeniable evidence. In many ways humanity’s future depends on it.
