DISINFORMATION has been consistently on my mind this month. A few weeks ago, I attended the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, where it was a hot topic.
In the recently released WEF Global Risks Report 2026, misinformation and disinformation were identified as among the most severe short-term threats facing the world. The report makes clear that increasingly sophisticated artificial intelligence (AI) systems can now scale misleading narratives faster, cheaper, and more persuasively than ever before, eroding trust in institutions, science, expertise, and even reality itself. As the saying goes, “A lie can travel half the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes”.
Disinformation in climate reporting was also the subject of a workshop the Sunway Centre for Planetary Health ran last month for 26 editors and senior correspondents from across the region. The most striking explanation shared at the workshop on what constitutes disinformation was “wrong, on purpose, for lots of money”.
In today’s digital and AI-shaped information environment, disinformation has become a systemic risk, weakening trust, distorting decision-making, and ultimately undermining our ability to act collectively on climate issues.
In Malaysia, this matters. Climate change is not a standalone policy issue; it is a systemic challenge that affects public health, land use, energy security, food systems, and economic prosperity, and it requires long-term planning. When climate information is distorted, delayed, or selectively presented, it undermines the evidence needed for sound decision-making across all these areas.
The damage does not stop online. It leads to weaker policies, slower action, and declining public trust at a time when clear, coordinated, science-based responses are most urgently required.
The challenge of disinformation is two-sided. Half of the problem resides in our own minds. If we fail to question the authenticity of information, we are vulnerable to manipulation and error. Choice matters, because we decide how we process what we see. This is especially important in an AI-mediated environment, where content can be fake and reassuringly simple answers are everywhere.
Recent research on climate disinformation in Malaysia reveals a worrying truth: Much of the misleading climate content people see is not accidental. It is built into the way politics, media, and development decisions work; where certainty, speed, and positive headlines are rewarded over accuracy and accountability. This suits powerful interests well, making climate disinformation a convenient tool for political and economic gain.
Climate disinformation shows up in several clear ways in our country.
One is deforestation denial. Official statistics and industry claims are repeatedly used to suggest forest cover is stable or that logging is sustainable, even when independent science says otherwise. In some cases, plantations are counted as forests, blurring a difference that matters for biodiversity loss and emissions. When scientific findings are repeatedly questioned or reframed like this, it is no longer a sensible debate. It is distortion, and it delays or derails accountability.
Another is green-washing. Environmentally harmful projects are rebranded as climate-positive or “sustainable development”. These stories highlight certification schemes or future offset promises while downplaying current environmental damage and social impacts. Closely related are so-called climate solutions, such as certain forms of large-scale hydropower or carbon offset schemes, that are sold as progress while still driving deforestation or displacement.
Perhaps the most powerful story relates to development and wellbeing. Environmental harm is framed as a necessary price we have to pay for economic growth, poverty reduction, or national competitiveness, especially by the fossil fuel industry. This argument is deeply persuasive because the aspirations are real. Yet when it goes unchallenged, it silences hard questions about who benefits now and who pays long-term costs.
Climate disinformation intersects with identity and rights. For example, when indigenous peoples’ rights are blurred into the broader bumiputra categories, protections intended for marginalised communities living in some of Malaysia’s most ecologically vulnerable regions can be weakened. When language becomes vague, accountability suffers.
AI now amplifies all of this. AI tools are designed to optimise engagement, not accuracy and truth. They can sound authoritative, mimic scientific language, and produce vast amounts of content quickly. As more people rely on AI as a kind of second brain, judgment itself is being slowly outsourced.
This is why fact-checking alone is not enough. Disinformation thrives where systems are brittle – where data is hard to access, where independent scrutiny is weak, where journalism is underfunded, and where public participation is more procedural than meaningful.
And so addressing climate disinformation needs deeper and more systemic action:
> Journalism must be treated as critical climate infrastructure. In an AI-saturated environment, well-trained editors and reporters are needed to test claims, explain trade-offs, and put data in context. This is not about controlling the story; it is about safeguarding credibility.
> Transparency matters. Environmental data must be open, land-use categories must be clear, and scientific assessments must be independent. Trust depends on evidence that can be scrutinised, not just declared.
> Climate decisions must also be participatory and precise. Clear definitions, meaningful consultations, and respect for rights are not obstacles to development; they are what makes development legitimate.
> Public awareness and critical thinking must be treated as long-term investments. In a world shaped by AI, the ability to question, verify, and think critically is not an option; it is a civic necessity. It is time to invest in double literacy, combining a holistic understanding of our natural intelligence, and a candid comprehension of how AI is reshaping it.
Climate change will test Malaysia not only through floods, heatwaves, and environmental stress, but through whether we can still agree on what is true.
In an age of noise, spin and AI-gene-rated certainty, the real danger is not losing an online argument but losing the ability to make decisions together. Coun-tering climate disinformation is ultimately about protecting trust, accountability, and our shared capacity to act before the costs become irreversible. Which choice will you make today?
Prof Tan Sri Dr Jemilah Mahmood, a physician and experienced crisis leader, is the executive director of the Sunway Centre for Planetary Health at Sunway University. She is the founder of Mercy Malaysia and has served in leadership roles internationally with the United Nations and Red Cross for the last decade. She writes on Planetary Health Matters once a month in Ecowatch. The views expressed here are entirely the writer's own.
