Climate science deniers are flooding social media with false claims during extreme weather events, drowning out reliable information and putting lives at risk.
A new report by the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), which researches and campaigns against online hatred and disinformation, finds that anti-climate figures are increasingly spreading false information about wildfires and hurricanes fuelled by climate change.
CCDH looked at some of the most popular misleading social media posts spread by influential climate science deniers between April 2023 and April 2025, using DeSmog’s climate disinformation database to identify the most prominent deniers.
Analysing Facebook, Instagram, X, and YouTube, it found that three quarters of the most popular misleading posts about extreme weather events focused on hurricanes and wildfires.
These posts received hundreds of million of views across the two year period, spreading doubt about the causes of the disasters and even maligning the work of emergency responders.
The wildfires in Los Angeles (LA), California, earlier this year, which killed at least 30 people and destroyed thousands of homes, accounted for 38 percent of the posts. Hurricane Helene, which hit south-eastern U.S. in September 2024 and caused more than 250 deaths, accounted for 14 percent of the posts.
Baseless claims made by U.S. conspiracy theorist Alex Jones during the LA wildfires received 408 million views on X. Jones claimed without evidence that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was “confiscating food” and that the fires were a “globalist” plot.
These posts received more views on X than the information distributed on the platform by 10 key emergency response accounts – including FEMA, the fire department, and local government – and the 10 largest U.S. news outlets.
Those behind the false information were “preventing informed debate and risking lives during crisis events,” the report states.
CCDH also found that online platforms often boosted these false claims, while almost all of the posts were allowed to remain on the platforms without being fact-checked.
It follows an investigation by Media Matters last month finding that half of the top 10 most popular online shows – including those hosted by ex-mixed martial arts fighter Joe Rogan and disgraced former comedian Russell Brand – spread misinformation or false narratives about Hurricane Helene.
“While families mourned and first responders combed through wreckage after climate disasters in Texas and California, social media companies shamelessly exploited these catastrophes for profit. The rapid spread of climate conspiracies online isn’t accidental, it’s baked into a business model that profits from outrage and division,” said Imran Ahmed, CEO of CCDH.
“When distraught people can’t distinguish real help from online deception, platforms become complicit in the suffering of innocent people.”
Wildfire of Disinformation
The report notes that accurate information is being buried by false claims in online spaces.
UK accounts also played a part. A video by the right-wing broadcaster GB News posted in January entitled “The truth behind the LA Fires: DEI and Left-wing policies burned LA” dismissed the role of climate change in the disaster – calling it “bogus nonsense”.
A study by scientists at the World Weather Attribution found that climate change made the LA wildfires 35 percent more likely.
The CCDH report said that “superspreader” Alex Jones – who in 2022 was ordered to pay $1.3 billion (around £964.6 million) to the families of the Sandy Hook school shooting after claiming it was a hoax – had “drowned out credible information on LA wildfires”.
“When inaccurate information spreads in an acute weather crisis, it can put lives at risk, misleading people about the danger they are in”, it notes. “It can also endanger first responders, disrupt life-saving decisions, and mislead people about the aid that they need.”
The Role of Social Media Platforms
The report also notes that false claims are being boosted by online platforms.
Eighty-eight percent of the posts identified on X were from “verified users” as were 73 percent on YouTube, and 64 percent on Meta platforms. Whereas X’s blue verification stamp was previously given to those who were considered to be high-profile or a public authority, the badge can now be bought by anyone.
One in three misleading YouTube videos recommended more climate denial content next to them.
The platforms also profited from this misinformation. YouTube placed adverts next to 29 percent of its misleading extreme weather videos. Five of the accounts on X spreading false information about extreme weather were signed up for the site’s paid subscription services.
Meta also shares advertising revenue with three accounts that have spread misleading information – including MAGA influencer Charlie Kirk, and Fox News host Laura Ingraham – via a programme that allows users to make money from ads shown alongside their videos.
Following Donald Trump’s victory in November’s U.S. presidential election, Meta owner Mark Zuckerberg also announced that his platforms would abandon the use of independent fact-checkers.
Despite claiming a commitment to sustainability, the world’s largest investment fund continues to invest heavily in fossil fuels through its “green” funds — prompting accusations of greenwashing.
In the first quarter of 2025, BlackRock invested $3 billion in fossil-fuel companies through its funds that are defined as sustainable. Credit: Christopher Michel/Flickr (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
Claim to be verified: BlackRock offers its global clients sustainable investment products, which allegedly exclude fossil fuels.
Context: In the first quarter of 2025 only, the world’s largest asset manager invested US$3 billion in fossil-fuel companies through its funds defined as sustainable. BlackRock promotes them with language that is potentially misleading and likely to leave unwary investors believing that such products exclude fossil fuels.
In 2016, Larry Fink, CEO of investment firm BlackRock, had no doubts about the importance of environmental, social, and governance (ESG): “Over the long term, ESG issues – ranging from climate change to diversity to board effectiveness – have real and quantifiable financial impacts”, he wrote in a letter on corporate governance in 2016.
The CEO of the world’s largest asset-management company has since changed his mind: “The reason I backed away from using the term ESG is that it means something different to everyone. It’s so undefined that it’s become unmentionable”, Fink said in 2023, as a guest on the Wall Street Journal podcast “Free Expression”. In the same podcast, he added: “If you want to invest in hydrocarbons, we will select the best hydrocarbon companies in the world for you. If you want to invest in a more decarbonized portfolio, we’re going to try to find the best economic portfolio that will achieve your financial goal.”
BlackRock manages US$11.6 trillion of investments. The firm has drastically changed its ESG and sustainable-investing policies in recent years. In its 2020 letter to clients, BlackRock used the term “ESG” 26 times and made a bold assertion: “We believe that sustainability must become our new standard for investing.” It also pledged to launch a product “that allows clients to invest in companies with the highest ESG scores, using our most extensive exclusion criteria, including one for fossil fuels.”
These commitments were widely covered in the international media. In January 2020, the specialist magazine UK Investor headlined: “BlackRock to focus on ESG and climate change in 2020”. CNBC wrote: “BlackRock, a $7 trillion asset manager, puts climate change at the heart of its investment strategy for 2021.” The specialist publication ESG Today asked: “BlackRock is betting everything on sustainability: Why is this important?”
Glossary
The European Regulation on sustainability-related disclosures in the financial services sector (known as SFDR) introduces two categories of green investments: those that merely promote “environmental and/or social characteristics” (Article 8), known in the jargon as “light green”, and those that must be properly “sustainable” (Article 9), known as “dark green”. In both cases, certain additional details must be provided to the consumer/investor, namely: (1) information about how these characteristics are met and (2) if a benchmark is indicated, an explanation of how that benchmark is consistent with the advertised characteristics.
While asset managers can independently define the criteria by which they consider a fund to promote “environmental and/or social characteristics”, “Article 9” funds must meet more stringent criteria regarding renewable energy, greenhouse gas emissions, etc. However, by exploiting semantic ambiguities, some managers still choose to sell funds that do not fall under Article 9 but rather under Article 8, while nonetheless labelling them as “sustainable and responsible” (i.e. dark green) investments.
To stay with the gambling theme, was BlackRock bluffing? In its 2025 letter, there is no reference to sustainability, ESG, or the Paris Climate Agreement. The company has left Net Zero Asset Managers, a global initiative launched in 2020 to promote net-zero 2050 projects. Following the departure of other major players such as JP Morgan, Net Zero Asset Managers has suspended its activities.
Yet, notwithstanding the ESG labels, the climate promises, and the pledges of “sustainability”, BlackRock continues to offer products that funnel money to the hydrocarbons giants.
BlackRock’s “sustainable” investments in fossil fuels
From 2023 to 2025, BlackRock invested an annual average of US$2.3 billion in the fossil-fuel majors through its ESG funds. The supposedly “green” funds we initially identified are those that make reference to the EU Sustainable Finance Regulation (SFDR), which came into force in 2021. Articles 8 and 9 of the SFDR concern the promotion of “environmental or social” objectives and “sustainable investments”, respectively.https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/zNmlR/2/
In markets where sustainable finance is not regulated, BlackRock promotes funds that are entirely outside the SFDR definitions as “ESG”, “sustainable” and (energy) “transition”. These amounted to US$1.8 billion in the first quarter of 2025. The fact that sustainable finance is almost wholly unregulated in countries such as the United States allows BlackRock to use notably audacious names for products which continue to channel money to Big Oil. Examples include “iShares ESG Aware”, “iShares Global Clean Energy”, and “BlackRock Sustainable Advantage”.https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/02UAz/4/
A US investor might thus be sold a BlackRock “Carbon Transition Readiness” fund that has funnelled more than ten million dollars to fossil giants including BP, Equinor, Shell, Eni, and TotalEnergies. The “Climate Conscious and Transition” fund, meanwhile, has pumped US$65 million into Chevron, ConocoPhillips, EOG, Exxon, and Occidental Petroleum.
Among the so-called “carbon majors” in which BlackRock invests through its supposedly green funds are many of the same names: TotalEnergies, Shell, Equinor, Chevron, Eni, and Repsol. All are heavy emitters of greenhouse gases responsible for global warming. None, as we showed in the previous article in this series, is currently on track with its Paris Agreement targets.https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/lRahP/4/
BlackRock appears to be disrespecting its own criteria
Contrary to Larry Fink’s statements in the Wall Street Journal podcast, our fact-checking reveals that over 20 funds classified as Article 8 or 9 (the “green” fund categories under EU regulations) have stakes in the oil giants. This despite the fact that their prospectuses contain commitments on ESG or decarbonisations, and may even openly renounce fossil-fuel investments.
For example, the iShares MSCI Europe Screened UCITS ETF (exchange-traded fund) explicitly states in the first lines of its description that it excludes exposure to “fossil-fuel extraction”. A BlackRock client who is not sufficiently versed in interpreting such claims might therefore reasonably expect companies such as Shell, TotalEnergies, and Eni to be excluded.
Screenshot of the prospectus for the iShares MSCI Europe Screened UCITS ETF: BlackRock states that it excludes “fossil-fuel extraction” from its investments. | Source: iShares.com
A closer look at the fund’s sustainability information shows that it is passively managed and follows the MSCI Europe Screened Index, aiming to promote environmental and social standards. This means the fund uses MSCI’s own rules for excluding certain companies — MSCI being one of the largest global financial firms.
To understand what these exclusion rules are, investors must go to MSCI’s website and read the ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) methodology behind the index. While it initially appears that oil and gas are excluded, the detailed rules reveal otherwise. The index doesn’t exclude all fossil fuel companies. Instead, it only leaves out those earning more than 5% of their revenue from specific controversial sources: coal, unconventional oil and gas (like fracking or tar sands), palm oil, Arctic drilling, or companies that violate the UN Global Compact’s voluntary sustainability principles.
In short, the index allows most fossil fuel companies unless they cross certain thresholds. That’s why BlackRock, which uses this index, can claim in its prospectus to exclude fossil fuel extraction — but then clarify in other documents that it relies on MSCI’s criteria. In fact, BlackRock refers readers to MSCI’s methodology page for details — but that page leads to a 404 error.
This index, like many others we examined, claims to exclude companies involved in hydrocarbon extraction. However, it later clarifies that the exclusion applies only to “unconventional” projects, such as tar sands and Arctic drilling.
Despite this, many of the companies the funds invest in are still involved in these very activities. A detailed look at the rules and factsheets shows that there is often flexibility under vague categories like “other investments.” This loophole allows the funds to legally maintain their “sustainable” label, even while investing in companies that contradict it.
In its sustainability report, meanwhile, BlackRock makes a confusing claim that might raise eyebrows among the more attentive clients: “This Fund promotes environmental or social characteristics, but does not aim to invest sustainably.” The statement seems to conflict with the very description of the investment, which talks of “a meaningful approach” to sustainable investing.
To further protect itself, BlackRock makes clear that any sustainability conditions “do not change a fund’s investment objective or limit its investment universe, and there is no indication that a fund will adopt investment strategies focused on ESG factors, impact, or exclusion criteria”. BlackRock thus effectively contradicts its own promise to exclude fossil fuels.
In the first quarter of 2025, such nominally “green” funds held fossil-fuel assets worth more than US$1 billion.
Screenshot: MSCI Europe Screened Index fossil-fuel exclusion criteria. | Source: MSCI
Reviewing our findings, Nicolas Koch, from the NGO Sustainable Finance Observatory, comments: “We cannot expect customers to read all the information, and it is likely that most of them will be easily misled by statements that certain activities are completely excluded, when in fact they are not. However, the SFDR represents a major victory in terms of transparency in this regard. It should provide the necessary information to intermediaries, such as financial advisors, who could easily exclude this fund thanks to the SFDR.”https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/F5AuF/5/
In its “green” funds that specifically claim to exclude hydrocarbons from their portfolios, BlackRock holds fossil-fuel investments worth a total of US$850 million. The first lines of their prospectuses, in addition to mentioning the exclusion criteria, state that the investments are designed to reduce carbon impacts.
In August 2024, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) introduced stricter rules on the use of sustainability-related terms in fund names. These rules prohibit funds with significant fossil fuel holdings from using labels like “green,” “ESG,” or “sustainable.” The regulation took effect on 21 May 2025.
Before that date, the iShares MSCI Europe Screened UCITS ETF included “ESG” in its name, despite holding US$177 million in fossil fuel companies. As of now, it still holds around US$156 million in firms like Shell, TotalEnergies, Eni, Equinor, EQT, Aker, and OMV. Yet, the fund claims it is designed for investors who want to “exclude controversial sectors and reduce carbon intensity.”
In the first quarter of 2025, the iShares MSCI EMU ESG Enhanced CTB UCITS ETF fund invested US$160 million in fossil-fuel assets. It carries the CTB label, referring to the Carbon Transition Benchmark, meaning that it should promote decarbonisation standards. According to the new guidelines of the ESMA, BlackRock is required to demonstrate in its sustainability reporting how its investments are “on a clear and measurable path towards social or environmental transition”.
In its sustainability disclosures, BlackRock states that it doesn’t practise “engagement” with companies. The term refers to the interaction between asset managers and companies in which they hold equity stakes through “green” funds, where the aim is to positively influence their ESG and climate policies. According to a report by the European Commission’s sustainable-finance platform, such engagement can have positive impacts on companies, and this should be measured and shared with clients. BlackRock has chosen a different path. According to its disclosures, it “does not directly engage with companies, focusing instead on the quality of ESG data (it is committed to engaging directly with data and index providers to ensure better analysis and stability of ESG metrics)”.
“This is not a good way to generate impact and offer a more decarbonised investment portfolio”, says Sustainable Finance Observatory’s Nicolas Koch. NGO ShareAction’s latest report reveals that BlackRock has reduced its support for ESG resolutions at shareholder meetings to almost zero percent, and its commitment to sustainability is not sufficient to be considered credible. “Therefore, for any impact-oriented retail investor who has purchased iShares ESG ETFs in the past or is considering purchasing them in the future, there is a clear recommendation: avoid these products and move toward funds that engage in credible dialogue with companies”, concludes Koch.
To date, none of the carbon majors, including those in which BlackRock’s green funds invest, appear to have energy-transition plans consistent with international climate goals
Robert Clarke, an expert at Client Earth, a nonprofit legal and environmental organisation, makes a similar point:
“There is a huge question mark over impact claims. This is another category of potential ‘transition-washing’. Many funds have been rebranded from ‘ESG’ or ‘sustainable’ to ‘transition funds’, highlighting a subset of them that focus on transition strategies. But the problem here is: what happens if a fund is labeled a transition fund but the investments are not consistent? An example of this, in our view, is continued investment in the expansion of fossil fuels, which is simply incompatible with the transition.”
To date, none of the carbon majors, including those in which BlackRock’s green funds invest, appear to have energy-transition plans consistent with international climate goals. In fact, many seem to have watered down their climate strategies over the past year, as reported in a Carbon Tracker report published in April 2025.
Specialists agree that engagement with companies and voting at shareholder meetings are the most effective mechanisms for ensuring that “sustainable” investments have an impact. A recent report by the Sustainable Finance Observatory shows that 51 percent of European investors want their investments to have an impact.
We asked ESMA whether it considers BlackRock’s statements on sustainability to be contradictory. “The supervisory authority of the related fund will have to determine whether it intends to investigate whether the disclosure may be unclear, incorrect, or misleading to investors”, a spokesperson said.
“BlackRock operates in one of the most highly regulated industries in the world, and our funds, their prospectuses, and their supporting documents, adhere to all applicable regulations,” a spokesperson for the bank told Voxeurop. He added: “For our sustainable range, this includes those governing sustainable investing. iShares ETF holdings are published daily to provide investors with full transparency into where their investments go, and our leading sustainable fund range offers a spectrum of exposures allowing our clients to choose how to meet their own individual investment goals.”
BlackRock accused of greenwashing by Client Earth
The obvious incompatibility between the names of “sustainable” funds and their Big Carbon investments was tackled head on by the environmental group Client Earth in October 2024.
The organisation filed a legal complaint with the French financial supervisory authority, the AMF, challenging BlackRock’s labelling of certain consumer-oriented funds as “sustainable”. It singled out products such as the BSF Systematic Sustainable Global Equity Fund, pointing out that such funds had channelled €1 billion to the fossil-fuel sector.
In its action, Client Earth argued that such labels mislead consumers and may violate EU regulations. “There are rules that require communications to be fair, clear, and not misleading”, said Robert Clarke. “It should be the responsibility of the regulatory authorities [of the country] where the funds are marketed to take action to combat greenwashing, not only in fund names but also in prospectuses, in order to protect their investment sector. At present, national authorities are failing to take action.” In the wake of the complaint, BlackRock has changed the names or exclusion criteria of several of its funds.
A destroyed ambulance at Nasser Hospital in Gaza. (Photo: Rizek Abdeljawad / Alamy)
‘Common’ to find ‘deep unease’ among British troops over Israel’s conduct in Gaza, military insider tells Declassified
An internal British army media report has acknowledged that Israel is “bombing hospitals and ambulances”, claiming its troops are breaching the Geneva Convention in ways not done by Germany in World War Two.
The comments are contained in an interview between a senior army doctor and a presenter from the UK military’s own communications department, who draw parallels with Israeli conduct in Gaza and Russian atrocities in Ukraine.
Their comments indicate that within Britain’s armed forces, personnel are speaking more frankly about Israeli war crimes than ministers.
A member of the UK military, who asked to remain anonymous, told Declassified: “This video casually contradicts the government’s public position – that Israel is not systematically committing war crimes, so we can continue to arm and train their forces – because everyone in its intended audience knows that to be untrue.
“The comments in the video reflect common sentiments I have heard expressed within the armed forces, and for many personnel that recognition is a source of deep unease.”
Military co-operation between London and Tel Aviv has not been suspended. An Israeli colonel graduated from a UK military academy just last month, while the head of Israel’s air force was able to visit a Royal Air Force (RAF) base in Oxfordshire.
Arms exports for the F-35, Israel’s most advanced fighter jet, have been allowed to continue via third countries. Hundreds of RAF surveillance flights have flown over Gaza since 2023.
Keir Starmer objects to criticism of the IDF. He asks how could anyone object to them starving people to death, forced marches like the Nazis did, bombing Gaza’s hospitals and universities,mass-murdering journalists, healthworkers and starving people queuing for food, killing and raping prisoners and murdering children. He calls for people to stop obstructing his genocide for Israel.UK Labour Party government ministers Keir Starmer, Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves explain that they are partners complicit in Israel’s Gaza genocide. The UK has provided Israel with arms, military and air force support. They explain that they don’t do gas chambers but do do forced marches, starvation, destroy hospitals, mass-murders of journalists and healthcare workers.Vote Labour for Genocide.
Israeli army colonel Elad Edri (circled) graduates from the Royal College of Defence Studies at a ceremony in Chelsea, July 2025. (Photo: RCDS)
After months of secrecy from Labour, we expose where Israeli troops have trained in Britain during the Gaza genocide.
Israeli army officers have been allowed to study at a British military academy in central London throughout the Gaza genocide, Declassified can reveal.
At least two Israeli colonels have attended the prestigious Royal College of Defence Studies (RCDS) since 2023.
One of the soldiers, thought to be Elad Edri, only graduated a fortnight ago.
Another officer, Yeftah Norkin, completed the course in July 2024 and almost immediately led the army’s “Bang” division in Israel’s invasion of Lebanon.
Norkin, who comes from an influential military family, commanded a patrol company in Operation Cast Lead, Israel’s 2008-9 war in Gaza which killed hundreds of children.
…
While Sandhurst teaches junior army officers, the RCDS mentors mid-ranking troops who have ambitions to climb the chain of command, awarding them a post-graduate certificate in international security studies.
The college describes itself as “a world-renowned institution committed to developing strategic thinkers… who have the potential to reach the highest ranks”.
RCDS alumni include Major General Hidai Zilberman, the former IDF spokesperson and now Israeli defence attaché to the US, and General Harel Knfao, who served as Chief of Staff of Israel’s Southern Command.
The Royal College of Defence Studies on Belgrave Square, London. (Photo: Simon Turner / Alamy)
UK Labour Party government ministers Keir Starmer, Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves explain that they are partners complicit in Israel’s Gaza genocide. The UK has provided Israel with arms, military and air force support. They explain that they don’t do gas chambers but do do forced marches, starvation, destroy hospitals, mass-murders of journalists and healthcare workers.UK Labour Party Shadow Foreign Secretary repeatedly heckled at a speech to the Fabian Society over his and the Labour Party’s support for and complicity in Israel’s genocide of Gaza.Vote Labour for Genocide.
Palestine Action ‘supporters’ wait to be arrested under the Terrorism Act. (Photo: James Manning / Alamy)
[Declassified] Exclusive: Documents seen by Declassified reveal serious concerns within the UK government and MI5 about proscribing Palestine Action.
…
Declassified has now seen documents which detail why, how, and when the decision to proscribe Palestine Action was made. They form part of the material relied upon in the group’s High Court challenge to the ban.
‘Novel and unprecedented’
The documents detail how the government’s Proscription Review Group (PRG) conceded in March 2025 that a ban on Palestine Action would be “novel and unprecedented”.
This was because “there was no known precedent of an organisation being proscribed… mainly due to its use or threat of action involving serious damage to property”.
The Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC), which is based within MI5, also concluded that “the majority of direct action by Palestine Action would not be classified as terrorism… but does often involve criminality”.
Cooper was nonetheless advised in March by PRG and JTAC that the threshold to ban the group had been met based on three out of a total of 385 incidents, involving “serious property damage” to arms factories.
…
The documents also indicate how national security concerns were not a central factor in the Home Office’s decision to proscribe. Indeed, they barely feature in the government’s open evidence.
Ammori’s lawyers argued in court that “no national security justification for the proscription” was articulated by the Home Office, such that Cooper “did not take into account any weighty national security consideration requiring immediate proscription”.
This appears to run contrary to Cooper’s statement to parliament on 23 June, in which she declared: “The UK’s defence enterprise is vital to the nation’s national security and this Government will not tolerate those who put that security at risk”.
