What do you do when years of meticulous research fuels misleading climate science narratives?
As a Ph.D. candidate and glaciologist committed to understanding and communicating about Earth’s changing climate, I found myself caught in a wave of misinformation and manipulation when my research was exploited to spread climate change denialism online.
On 16 May 2023, my coauthors and I published a paper titled “Change in Antarctic Ice Shelf Area from 2009 to 2019.” This publication used NASA satellite imagery to map the annual ice front positions of 34 ice shelves over 11 years. This record revealed their natural growth and retreat patterns around Antarctica’s periphery over a short time frame.
To clarify, ice shelves float on the ocean and regularly gain and lose mass in a balance of snow accumulation, ice flow, and iceberg calving. Their short-term changes do not affect sea levels and are not direct indicators of climate change or long-term climate trends.
Our research was intended to fill a gap in monitoring data starting in 2009. We are proud of our study but expected a modest reception mostly limited to fellow geoscientists in the academic world.
In the years since our paper was published, however, it has received more than 174,000 article views, exploding in a way that neither I nor my coauthors ever anticipated.
Rightttttt @CNN 😂 🤦♂️ @JunkScience | Climate scammers… wrong again:
Estimates of Antarctic melting are 3,000% wrong.
Antarctica gained 661 billion tons of ice during 2009-2019 vs. a prediction of a 20,000 billion ton loss.
It's all a hoax. https://t.co/gL35yFM6R1… pic.twitter.com/O7ORZxjjuL
— Stephen Richardson (@richirich1968) June 6, 2023
Climate change denialists fueled this unexpected attention, claiming that our paper debunked the “climate change myth.” In particular, our observation that ice shelf areas experienced more overall growth rather than retreat led to an onslaught of viral Twitter/X posts ranging from “What’s actually melting: The climate hoax narrative” to “Climate scammers… wrong again.”
These tweets inaccurately equated short-term ice shelf growth with longer-term ice sheet stability and growth, creating an intense discourse between climate change deniers, scientists, and the general public. As our paper went viral for all the wrong reasons, I felt the control over my research slip away.
Initially, my coauthor Anna Hogg and I responded to emails and tweets directly, but we soon became overwhelmed and limited our replies to journalists and trusted news outlets.
Attention waned until January 2024, when Carbon Brief recognized our paper with the highest Altmetric score ever among their climate paper reviews—25,730. Hogg’s quotes in the article helped reinstate legitimacy to our results, a welcome relief after earlier misinterpretations.
Another wave of misinformation swelled in May 2024, when a (since deleted) Heartland Institute video misused our work to downplay established facts about Antarctic ice sheet loss. This led to fact-check articles from FactCheck.org, USA TODAY, AAP Factcheck, and Reuters. Journalists from all these publications reached out to me and my coauthors and used our own words to debunk the myths, but the cycle of blatant misinformation and follow-up corrections still seems endless.
The age of the Internet and open-access journals make our research accessible to all—and don’t we want it to be?
So how do we move forward?
Scientific publications do not exist in a vacuum. The age of the Internet and open-access journals make our research accessible to all—and don’t we want it to be? The scientific community should not gatekeep scientific progress, especially when it is publicly funded. It is our privilege to collect, analyze, and interpret data, and it is our responsibility to share it broadly.
I am grateful that my paper reached the nonacademic community, but I was unprepared for managing the willful misinformation surrounding it. I also found myself in the unexpected role of a liaison between reporters and the public, translating complex scientific findings into accessible narratives. By sharing the lessons I’ve learned, along with practical resources for preventing and addressing misinformation, I hope to help other scientists avoid or at least better navigate these challenges as they strive to communicate effectively with the public.
Before Publication
From writing to editing to awaiting the version of record, many organizations offer tools and guidance to help scientists address and prevent potential misinterpretation of their work before it is published.
In the writing phase, scientists may want to incorporate explicit statements or disclaimers to counteract potential misinterpretation. For climate-specific research, I encourage researchers to explore Science Feedback’s reviews and insights for framing climate findings responsibly.
For example, adding a direct statement such as “This study examines short-term ice shelf movement, which does not provide a basis for conclusions pertaining to long-term climate or ice sheet behavior and stability” to my abstract may have reduced misconceptions and helped set clearer expectations for readers.
Additionally, many journals provide the opportunity for plain language summaries, which can clearly explain the study’s focus, its relevance to a broad audience, and—importantly—its limitations.
AGU offers online and in-person guidance in developing this skill set. The Plain Language Action and Information Network focuses on clear communication in government writing but also provides general resources on writing accessible summaries. The AAAS Communication Toolkit from the American Association for the Advancement of Science offers specific guidance on simplifying scientific jargon for broader audiences.
As scientists edit and solicit feedback on their manuscripts, I encourage them to share drafts of their papers with individuals outside their field. Journal reviewers are often in your scientific bubble and may not catch potential misunderstandings. Submitting to platforms like EarthArXiv and Open Science Framework (OSF) Preprints prior to submitting to a peer-reviewed journal allows for open-access feedback, particularly flagging for potential misinterpretations. These “early-warning signs” might provide scientists the opportunity to refine language and clarify concepts. For internal reviews, encourage feedback from colleagues in external disciplines to identify assumptions or technical terms that might be misconstrued by general audiences.
In the final run-up to publication, scientists can engage in proactive training by exploring institutional resources on science communication, such as AGU’s Sharing Science workshops, the SciLine network from AAAS, and the COMPASS Science Communication community. The National Center for Science Education also offers online articles and workshops that emphasize avoiding and countering common climate misinformation.
All these learning opportunities focus on narrative-building and framing techniques to clarify complex ideas. They can empower scientists with tools for outreach and navigation of the dynamic digital media landscape. University-based training may also be available for authors to learn social media best practices and partner with established science communicators to preempt or counter misinterpretations before they spiral out of control.
After Publication
Following publication, if findings are misrepresented, scientist-authors need to remember to relax and breathe. Unpredictable and widespread manipulation of your scientific research is an ugly experience and can feel overwhelming and belittling.
Remember, your paper went through months—or even years—of data collection, analysis, edits, and revisions. It went through a rigorous, formal peer review process that deemed it worthy of publication. While acknowledging it’s not foolproof, scientists should trust that the publication process upholds scientific integrity.
Resources to Combat
Misinformation
Before Publication
Writing Plain Language Summaries
Open Source Feedback
Keeping Track of Your Work
Education Outreach
Science Communication Networks
Misinterpretation of your research does not equate to bad science, and there are ways to clarify and realign the reception of your research and hard work.
Be selective in your engagement. When confronted with misinformation about my own paper, I was told that “silence is golden” and that most online discourse is futile to address. My institutional networks had little confidence that I alone could successfully convince loud and unwavering Internet users by participating in one-on-one debates.
However, while being selective, remember there is still merit to showing up for your science. My coauthors and I chose to engage with reporters who were willing to fact-check and refocus the discussion in outlets like Eos, CarbonBrief, FactCheck.org, AP Fact Check, and Reuters Fact Check. Working with journalists can reframe your science in accessible language to enhance its impact and foster public understanding. Scientists can collaborate with organizations like SciLine and the Union of Concerned Scientists for tools and support in countering misinformation effectively.
Don’t forget to reach out to your own academic community—scientists, universities, journals—for support. The experience of addressing misinformation isn’t unique, and peers can offer guidance for engaging with reporters and managing online discourse.
During the height of the misinformation associated with my paper, I found the most comfort from fellow cryosphere scientists and colleagues; they kept me grounded throughout the experience and validated the worth and integrity of my science.
Additionally, scientist-authors can leverage external sets of resources like Sharing Science and the European Geosciences Union’s (EGU) Science Media Toolkit and workshop on misinformation. Universities can assist with statements and public relations, and journals may help craft public-facing responses to clarify research. Engaging with science communication specialists and accessing these tools can equip researchers to address misinformation effectively.
Long-Term Strategies for Maintaining Scientific Accuracy
Beyond immediate responses, scientists and institutions can employ longer-term strategies to preserve the integrity of their research and its public narrative.
Scientists should track and evaluate public reception of their research. Tools like Altmetric and Google Alerts allow scientists to monitor how their work is being cited and discussed, providing insights into both short- and long-term interpretations. Tracking these data helps authors stay engaged with readers and spot evolving inaccuracies or misinterpretations.
Staying informed also encourages specific follow-up actions, such as publishing updates or related research papers. For instance, in 2023, Benjamin Davison and colleagues published “Annual Mass Budget of Antarctic Ice Shelves from 1997 to 2021,” which leveraged a longer dataset (more than 20 years instead of a single decade) and helped clarify misinterpretations of shorter-term studies like mine.
Encouraging researchers to share their experiences, challenges, and successes at conferences, at workshops, and online can help prepare future authors to anticipate and address similar issues.
Building partnerships with educational initiatives, such as Climate Central and the Science Literacy Foundation, can help scientists maintain narrative accuracy about their work over time. These organizations prioritize making scientific findings accessible and widely understood, bridging the gap between complex science and public understanding.
Scientists can also contribute to the discourse on an individual level. Documenting and sharing experiences with misinterpretation and misinformation can create valuable learning tools within academic and communication training circles. Encouraging researchers to share their experiences, challenges, and successes at conferences, at workshops, and online can help prepare future authors to anticipate and address similar issues.
Preserving scientific integrity is a proactive and collaborative effort. By seeking support and engaging with trusted media, I regained some control over my research narrative.
I shared my experience during an eLightning presentation in the C42C – Communicating Cryosphere Change for Planning and Decision-Making session at AGU’s Annual Meeting 2024. The presentation sparked engaging discussions with colleagues about how we, as scientists, can better tailor our communication strategies to make complex topics more accessible to the public.
By equipping ourselves with preventive strategies, employing mitigation and response tools, and building trusted networks, we can guide misinformed conversations back to accuracy and preserve the value of rigorous research.
These conversations reinforced the purpose of CryoZine, a science communication initiative I am developing to make cryosphere research more engaging and approachable for broader audiences. CryoZine won second place in the AGU Flash Freeze competition, and AGU Cryosphere section prize funds will support website development, artist compensation, and outreach initiatives to launch CryoZines at major workshops.
Together, we must strive for our publications to reach beyond the echo chambers of both academia and social media. Scientists should balance knowing how to address potential misinterpretations with knowing when to step back from fruitless online discourse. Universities and journals must provide resources to defend published research.
By equipping ourselves with preventive strategies, employing mitigation and response tools, and building trusted networks, we can guide misinformed conversations back to accuracy and preserve the value of rigorous research.
I fully intend to apply these lessons as I publish new research. I encourage others to do the same.
Author Information
Julia R. Andreasen (she/her; andr0856@umn.edu), University of Minnesota, St. Paul
Citation: Andreasen, J. R. (2025), When climate research fuels climate myths: Author insights from a misused publication, Eos, 106, https://doi.org/10.1029/2025EO250034. Published on 3 February 2025.
This article does not represent the opinion of AGU, Eos, or any of its affiliates. It is solely the opinion of the author(s).
Text © 2025. The authors. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.
Related