From Watts Up With That?

By Charles Rotter

The term “misinformation” is not what it pretends to be. It’s not a scientific term, nor is it an objective measure of truth versus falsehood. Instead, it is a linguistic cudgel, wielded to discredit opposition and enforce adherence to a narrative. Recent efforts to “inoculate” people against misinformation—most recently championed in a study covered by Science and a preprint on PsyArXiv—are just the latest in a long line of attempts to control thought under the guise of protecting it.

Concern about the impact of misinformation on the epistemic integrity of democracy is
widespread 1. In addition, misinformation demonstrably affects attitudes and intentions towards
health behaviors in experiments2 and in real-world situations3,4. In response, researchers have
tested a variety of interventions to combat misinformation on social media5 (e.g., accuracy
nudges6, digital literacy tips7, inoculation8, debunking9). These interventions work via different
psychological mechanisms, but all share the goals of increasing recipients’ ability to distinguish
between true and false information and/or increasing the veracity of news shared on social
media. This toolkit of approaches is useful, but it is currently difficult to compare the
interventions because they have been tested in different environments, with different sets of
stimuli (e.g., headlines vs. tweets), using different participants and different methods. These
differences make it difficult to know how the interventions would perform in an equal testing
environment.

https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/uyjha

This study, with Stephan Lewandowsky included as a lead author, epitomizes how “misinformation” is deployed not as a genuine concern for truth, but as a rhetorical weapon aimed squarely at dissent. By labeling contrarian perspectives as dangerous misinformation, the authors effectively close the door on debate and entrench themselves as arbiters of what can—and cannot—be discussed.

“Inoculating” Against a Fiction

Let’s dispense with the pretense that misinformation is a real phenomenon. The term implies an objective standard for truth, but in practice, it is applied selectively and politically. What qualifies as misinformation is not determined by careful inquiry or evidence but by whether a statement aligns with the prevailing orthodoxy. If it fits the narrative, it’s protected speech; if it challenges the narrative, it’s misinformation.

This sleight of hand is on full display in the Science article. The authors frame misinformation as a disease that spreads like a virus, a framing that conveniently casts dissenters as a public health threat. The supposed solution is to “inoculate” the public by preemptively teaching them how to recognize and reject misinformation. But this raises an obvious question: Who gets to decide what is true and what is false?

The answer is clear from the study’s methods. Participants were tested using examples of so-called misinformation, including the debunked claim that “97% of scientists agree” on anthropogenic climate change. This figure, derived from John Cook’s heavily criticized study, is itself a prime example of narrative-driven data manipulation. As detailed by Watts Up With That?, the 97% statistic was manufactured through selective coding and arbitrary exclusions, producing a number that served political purposes rather than reflecting scientific reality.

Yet in this study, participants were “inoculated” to accept this figure as fact, while dissenting views were treated as misinformation. This isn’t education; it’s indoctrination. By teaching people to uncritically accept the dominant narrative, the authors are not protecting them from falsehood—they are training them to parrot the party line.

The Weaponization of Misinformation

The true purpose of the term “misinformation” is control. By labeling an idea as misinformation, its opponents can dismiss it without engaging in substantive debate. This tactic is particularly effective in fields like climate science, where the complexities and uncertainties of the subject are often reduced to simplistic slogans.

Consider how “misinformation” is applied unevenly. Alarmist claims about impending climate doom are rarely scrutinized under this framework, even when they lack scientific support. Predictions of catastrophic sea-level rise or claims that every hurricane is caused by climate change are accepted without question. Yet any skepticism about the efficacy of Net Zero policies or the accuracy of climate models is instantly branded as misinformation.

This double standard exposes the term for what it is: a rhetorical weapon used to enforce conformity. It allows the proponents of the dominant narrative to delegitimize opposing views without addressing their substance. Worse, it creates a chilling effect on free thought, as individuals and institutions self-censor to avoid being labeled as purveyors of misinformation.

Lewandowsky: The High Priest of Misinformation Policing

Stephan Lewandowsky’s involvement in this study is hardly surprising. His career has been defined by a relentless campaign to delegitimize dissent, particularly in climate science. His track record, as documented extensively by Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit, reveals a consistent pattern: framing opposition as irrational or conspiratorial rather than engaging with their arguments.

Lewandowsky’s infamous “Recursive Fury” paper, for example, was a ham-fisted attempt to paint his critics as conspiracy theorists. The paper was so riddled with ethical and methodological issues that it was retracted, yet Lewandowsky has continued to employ the same tactics. Whether it’s selectively sampling data, relying on non-representative surveys, or outright misrepresenting his opponents, his work consistently prioritizes narrative enforcement over intellectual rigor.

In this latest study, Lewandowsky doubles down on his preferred strategy: pathologizing dissent. By framing misinformation as a virus, he casts skeptics not as individuals with legitimate concerns, but as vectors of societal harm. This is not science; it is an exercise in narrative control.

For additional reading on Lewandowsky’s problematic history, McIntyre’s analyses provide thorough documentation: “Lewandowsky’s Fury”, “Lewandowsky’s Fake Correlation”, and “Recursive Fury and Hide the Decline”.

Misinformation as a Political Tool

The broader context of this study is a societal shift toward suppressing dissent under the guise of combating misinformation. We see this trend in the increasing use of fact-checkers, social media censorship, and calls for governments to regulate “misinformation.” These efforts are rarely about protecting the public from falsehoods; they are about consolidating power by silencing opposition.

In the climate debate, this is especially evident. Skeptics who question the efficacy of renewable energy, the reliability of climate models, or the unintended consequences of policies like Net Zero are routinely labeled as misinformation spreaders. This tactic sidesteps the need for debate by framing skeptics as morally or intellectually deficient.

The danger of this approach cannot be overstated. It erodes the foundations of scientific inquiry, which depends on the open exchange of ideas and the willingness to question orthodoxy. By framing dissent as a societal ill, the proponents of misinformation policing risk turning science into a dogma, where only approved views are allowed to exist.

Conclusion: Reject the Myth of Misinformation

Misinformation is not a real phenomenon; it is a rhetorical tool used to discredit opposition and enforce conformity. The recent study by Lewandowsky and his colleagues illustrates how this term is weaponized to suppress dissent and promote narrative control. By teaching people to uncritically accept the dominant narrative, the study does not combat misinformation—it perpetuates it.

True intellectual progress comes from questioning assumptions, debating ideas, and acknowledging uncertainty. The concept of misinformation subverts these principles, replacing them with a regime of censorship and thought policing. If we value freedom of thought and the integrity of science, we must reject the fiction of misinformation and resist efforts to use it as a tool of control.