The same lies, every fire season: a coalition report makes the case for pre-planned crisis comms

A coalition called Climate Action Against Disinformation has published an analysis, "A Summer of Extreme Lies: Heatwave and Wildfire Climate Disinformation in 2026", arguing that social media platforms let predictable falsehoods about wildfires and heatwaves spread widely despite repeated warnings that the same narratives would return ^[1]. The finding follows warnings issued in June 2026 by CAAD and the European Digital Media Observatory that extreme weather events were likely to be used to circulate familiar falsehoods ^[2], which puts roughly two months between the forecast and the documented recurrence ^[3][14].

The taxonomy is short enough to fit on a card. According to the report, the recycled claims are that wildfires are caused mainly by arson or poor forest management, that heatwaves are ordinary seasonal weather, and that scientists and journalists are exaggerating risk to advance political agendas ^[4]. The regional variants are equally stable: Canadian wildfire smoke drew blame directed at Canadian leaders and forest mismanagement rather than fire-prone climate conditions, with some posts escalating into violent rhetoric about retaliation against Canada ^[5]; UK discussion returned to arson, net zero and media alarmism ^[6]; European heatwave coverage was used to challenge climate science, attack renewable energy and frame extreme heat as harmless or politically exaggerated ^[7]. Portuguese- and Spanish-language conversation around the Iberian heatwave added claims of deliberate weather manipulation ^[8], and the report estimates that Portuguese-language heatwave posts carrying denialist narratives reached more than 4.7 million views ^[9].

The operational consequence is a distribution problem, not a debating one. CAAD communications co-chair Philip Newell says the lies are drowning out the information people need to survive extreme events ^[10], and cites analysis of the 2025 Los Angeles wildfires in which posts about the fires by conspiracy theorist Alex Jones on X drew far more views than official emergency response guidance ^[11]. An emergency agency that plans to publish accurate guidance and expect it to travel is planning against that result.

Two claims in the report explain why improvisation loses. Genevieve Guenther, author of The Language of Climate Politics, says the similarity of wildfire narratives across right-wing media, political figures and prominent climate contrarians suggests talking points are being distributed through a wider political ecosystem ^[12], with the twin aims of deflecting attention toward causes unrelated to climate and implying that fires can be contained or prevented by other means ^[13]. Newell frames the supply side as an incentive structure rather than a belief problem, arguing that engagement-rewarding algorithms have created "a secondary market for climate lies" because viral posts generate advertising revenue ^[15]. The report also borrows Kate Starbird's term "participatory disinformation": aligned voices set the frame, and ordinary users fill it in with screenshots, memes, jokes and anecdotes ^[16]. A communications team is therefore not answering one publisher. It is answering a template plus volunteers, at the speed of an evacuation window.

None of that requires new tooling. It requires the pre-season work that any repeatable risk gets: drafted rebuttals mapped to the three narratives, named owners, paid distribution budgeted before the smoke arrives, and a decision made in advance about what the organisation will not respond to.