Fighting back against climate rage bait

The opinions expressed here by Trellis expert contributors are their own, not those of Trellis.​

If you’re a climate change denier, you’re an idiot. 

If that sentence made you feel defensive, angry or compelled to keep reading – congratulations, we just rage baited you! That reflexive response isn’t accidental; it’s the operating model of one of the fastest-growing corners of modern media. 

Rage bait is deliberately designed to provoke outrage, fear or moral superiority to drive engagement. It doesn’t exist to inform — it exists to spread. The phenomenon is so popular that it was Oxford’s 2025 word of the year.  

And unfortunately, sustainability and climate change content has become chock-full of this internet equivalent to bubble gum. That’s because sustainability is fertile ground for oversimplified claims like “ESG is dead” or “electric vehicles are worse for the planet.” The industry sits at the intersection of complex data, long-term goals, political identity and close-to-the-heart values, which makes it ripe for emotional and reflexive reaction rather than thoughtful, reasoned discussion. 

And as the outright denial of anthropogenic climate change has become more difficult to defend, the age of “new denial” arguments has continued to undermine the work of undermining climate science and solutions. Such claims now account for 70 percent of all climate denial content on YouTube, doubling over the course of six years.

The formula

The rage bait formula is simple: make an exaggerated, loud and unsubstantiated assertion, remove relevant context, overstate the implications and present it as fact. Often these statements contain fragments of truth that are borderline defensible, presented as a conclusion aligned with someone’s preferred predetermined outcome. According to a recent Stanford piece, generative AI tools make rage bait easier and faster to produce.

A report published by Global Witness found that climate misinformation and disinformation spread unchecked on TikTok during COP29, mostly in user comments on videos such as climate change “isn’t real,” is a “hoax” or is a “made-up lie.” These comments, which largely went unchecked, were made on the channels of major news organizations, whose videos have collectively received more than 3 million views (as of the report).

Rage bait can also be more subtle, highlighting a tactic known as “feigned ignorance,” which is commonly deployed in climate change denial posts — like posting a snowy scene with the caption “proof that climate change doesn’t exist.” That said, under the current administration, climate-related rage bait is less subtle and not hidden from view as demonstrated by the president in a post on Truth Social in advance of the recent Winter storms:

“Record Cold Wave expected to hit 40 States. Rarely seen anything like it before. Could the Environmental Insurrectionists please explain — WHATEVER HAPPENED TO GLOBAL WARMING???”

Regardless of the format, the rage bait problem is growing exponentially based on how people consume news today. According to Pew Research Center, about one in five U.S. adults, and 37 percent of adults under 30 regularly get news from social media influencers. Yale Climate Connections recently noted that eight of the top ten online shows and personalities are spreading climate misinformation.

Much of last year, for example, podcaster Joe Rogan told his millions of listeners that a scientific study shows the Earth is cooling — despite the fact the researchers who authored the paper say his claims are completely false.

A better response 

Even when logically we know we shouldn’t engage in rage bait it’s hard to hold back at times. Rage bait relies on speed and your immediate emotional response is its fuel. 

First off, that’s why it’s important to pause. You won’t pass away in the couple of hours you take to digest the information. Creating even a small gap between reaction and response weakens its impact.

Second, interrogate the framing, not just the facts. Ask yourself: 

• What’s missing? Look for the context or datasets that are left out: time horizons, baselines or adjacent data that would materially change the takeaway. 
• Is the scale distorted? Ask whether a limited setback, isolated instance of failure or short-term underperformance is being presented as evidence of total collapse. 
• Who benefits? Consider whose financial, political or reputational interests are advanced by this interpretation, and how that incentive might shape the narrative. 

Look for common manipulation signs: if a topic feels like a sweeping generalization, false binaries (economic growth versus climate action), or black and white, it’s probably rage bait. 

Third, resist the urge to “win” in the comments. Public takedowns often spread misinformation further, not less. If you engage, do so by reframing: acknowledge legitimate concerns and reject the exaggerated conclusion. “Yes, EV supply chains have impacts. No, that doesn’t mean decarbonization is pointless.” 

For sustainability professionals, this calls for a shift in posture. Reflexive defensiveness only reinforces skepticism and blind optimism erodes credibility. What’s needed instead is grounded confidence: the ability to reflect on complexity and embrace nuance without apology. 

Sustainability isn’t about perfect solutions. It’s about directional progress in imperfect systems. Rage bait collapses that nuance into entertainment and traffics emotion and disguises it as a conclusion. Our job is to reopen the space for reality and redirect people’s understandable anger and confusion towards action.

If rage bait feeds on uncertainty and speed, sustainability survives on patience and perspective. And in today’s information economy, that might be the most sustainable choice we can make.