In early November 2024, I sat on the steps of Columbia University’s low library with some friends and felt the sun beat us in a T-shirt and summer gown. It’s 70 degrees Fahrenheit outside.
We all agree: “This shouldn’t be this warmth.”
My sister called my parents from the UK for a recent conversation. “They just say climate change is not real. OK, not Not realbut it’s natural, it’s not as serious as people say. ” she complained.
I closed my eyes and took a deep breath. I studied in climate school in New York and was committed to understanding and combating the crisis, but my own parents thought it was no big deal.
I bet most people have such people in their lives. Conspiracy theorist uncle, suspicious cousin, and grandmother shared YouTube videos, claiming global warming is fake news. A 2020 survey found that about 25% of the U.S. population agrees with sentiment that climate change is a scam.
Recently, I’ve been somewhat obsessed with climate conspiracy. Douglas and Sutton define conspiracy theory as “the belief that two or more actors have been secretly coordinated to achieve results, and their conspiracy is in the public interest, but not public knowledge.” Climate change is fertile for these theories because science is so complex. It is full of complex models, probability ranges and uncertainties that require us to master long-term trends, not just direct cause and effect. The public is expected to trust jet streams, ocean currents and radiation forcing when scientists warn, while fossil fuel lobbyists, podcast hosts and social media sometimes push simpler, more seductive narratives: All are scam.
Conspiracy theories therefore provide a simple, emotionally satisfying answer to complex questions. Instead of facing the reality of climate change or using their complicit estimates, people can choose a different story: being manipulated with climate disasters, scientists are corrupt, and crisis is exaggerated.
Hurricane Helen landed in the US in the fall of 2024 and killed more than 100 people in North Carolina alone, I scrolled on Twitter and was shocked to see the clues after the thread accused Democrats of manipulating the storm. According to these posts, it is a created disaster designed to acquire critical minerals, punish the red state before the election, and even called God’s punishment for democratic policies such as abortion. If it is less dangerous, it would be ridiculous.
As climate change intensifies, so do the disasters that follow. Conspiracy flourished in disaster areas. When big things happen, people look for answers and more importantly blame someone. They attracted the idea that powerful groups are secretly manipulating the world around us. Research shows that conspiracy theory actively undermines environmental policies by keeping people away from climate-friendly actions. In the aftermath of a major hurricane, misinformation can undermine public trust in disaster response agencies, leading to people refusing evacuation orders or denying government assistance. Online conspiracies have even inspired real-world threats, with FEMA officials suffering death threats for their role in “weaponized” natural disasters. Meanwhile, meteorologists have been harassed, or even harassed, for “promoting the climate agenda.”
Indeed, conspiracy theory is intensifying as quickly as the storm itself and spreading even faster. They are most powerful when conspiracy theories exploit deep fear and insecurity. The basic motivation for humans is self-improvement – the need to feel good about yourself and maintain self-esteem. People also want to believe that they are moving towards a bright future and that their prospects are safe. Climate change poses an existential threat to these beliefs, not just personal morality, but about the legitimacy of society as a whole. Acknowledging the scale of the crisis means estimating in uncomfortable truths: our way of life is unsustainable, the system we rely on has deep flaws, those in power fail us, and the future will be fundamentally different. For many people, denying reality is much easier than facing it.
So, what should we do?
When my sister called me in November, she asked mom and dad what to say. She is only 16 years old and doesn’t know all the science behind climate change. I want to start telling her about the carbon cycle and feedback loops, about the currents and tipping points and all the disasters that will happen. But instead, I told her to take a deep breath, go back downstairs and have supper with her parents. Because it’s the fact: arguing with a stubborn conspiracy theorists won’t change their minds.
“Some of the most powerful climate action comes not from consistency when perfect ideology, but from productivity tensions, from unlikely partnerships that discover common grounds”
We don’t need to waste energy debating those who refuse to listen, we need to focus on the larger middle ground: those who are skeptical, uncertain or disengaged. Many people are psychologically away from climate change and regard it as someone else’s problem, nor do they affect the abstract problems of their daily lives. Others, especially in wealthy countries, have experienced the disgust of solutions – fearing that climate solutions will be worse than climate change itself and that they will kill them and liberate them. Then some people feel powerless. Crisis piled up, disasters got worse, and it started to feel like everything we did was enough. This doom is paralyzed like a complete denial.
But there is hope here too. This middle position can drive action. As climate transmitters, we should focus.
If we want to change the middle ground, we must persevere. Kind. be patient. Most importantly, willing to work with people we don’t quite agree with. Some of the most powerful climate actions come from consistency when perfect ideology, but from productive tensions, which come from unlikely partnerships, although partnerships vary. We don’t have to agree to everything to make progress.
Climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe believes that we should start these conversations with common values. We should not start with the fact that we agree with. For example, energy is common; we all want reliable, affordable capabilities. Changing our energy systems is the fastest way to reduce emissions. The same is true for water. Everyone wants safe, clean, uncontaminated water. These are entry points, openings for discussion, not just climate change itself, but also about the future we want to build.
So no, I won’t spend time quarreling with people who think hurricanes are a weapon of government control, or even my own family. Instead, I will continue to talk about climate with people who will listen to everyone else, find common positions and divert opinions. I suggest you do the same. Because we need as many people as possible in every country and industry to join this battle.
Rosie Semlyen is a graduate student at Columbia Climate School and a research assistant at the National Center for Disaster Preparation, specializing in disaster risk management and climate policy.
The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Columbia Climate School, the Institute of Earth Studies or Columbia University.
