Title reads 'Fighting fire with listening: How climate conversations can help tackle misinformation'. Icon of two people with speech bubbles. Background image is a collage of photos with dried cracked earth and windfarms.

Fighting Fire with Listening: How Climate Conversations can help Tackle Misinformation

By

Introduction

This article draws on findings from a 2025 research project conducted by the Advocacy Research Network, in partnership with the Climate Justice Coalition. The project brought together insights from a comprehensive literature review and interviews with ten experienced climate organisers across Australia.

In an era where misinformation spreads faster than facts, especially on climate, these organisers agreed: relational, human-to-human conversations remain one of our most powerful tools.

The Misinformation Landscape

Climate organisers across Australia are encountering a rising tide of misinformation, with claims seeded by vested interests, amplified by social media, and repeated in everyday interactions. From falsehoods about renewable energy to confusion about climate science, volunteers report that misleading narratives often surface during street outreach, doorknocking, and community conversations.

The challenge isn’t just that misinformation exists. It’s that people don’t know who to trust. Social media has flattened the distinction between credible science and conspiracy, while economic stress, cultural polarisation, and government distrust make many Australians more susceptible to misleading messages.

One-to-one conversations may hold the power to reverse this trend. As one organiser explained: 

“What actually happened in the US is because people don’t have the ability to talk to people outside of their bubble. And we need to build that muscle. Conversations are a really good way of combating misinformation in communities, and also removing some of the narrative about ‘radical greenies’. Not necessarily by fact correcting, but by asking questions around: Where did you receive that information? What do you think are the interests of the people who are sharing that information? What do you think they’re trying to get you to think?”

Why Facts Can Fail

The problem with fact-based approaches becomes clear in the field. Door-knockers consistently report that people who oppose climate action aren’t swayed by scientific evidence. Instead, they question the source, dismiss the messenger, or simply change the subject. Research shows that facts alone rarely shift entrenched views, especially when those views are emotionally or culturally loaded.

As one experienced organiser explained: “if you tell someone they’re wrong, that’s all they’re going to remember. And then the next person who knocks on the door, or the next person who tries to persuade them is gonna have that negative experience in their head.”

This insight reflects a crucial understanding: challenging misinformation isn’t about winning debates. It’s about preserving relationships and keeping conversations open. Even if you don’t persuade the person, or convince the person to think or act a certain way, the output needs to be a positive experience for both the volunteer and the persuadable person.

The Strategic Approach: Focus on the Persuadable Middle

Rather than trying to convince everyone, successful programs use a “spectrum of allies” approach. As one organiser explained: “If you think of a spectrum of allies where one is strongly supportive and 5 is strongly opposed. If you come across a 5, the advice is to not bother because people who have a strong opinion, it’s incredibly hard to change their minds.”

This strategic targeting means volunteers can concentrate their energy on people who are genuinely open to considering different perspectives.

For those who are strongly opposed, the approach shifts to ensuring the interaction remains respectful. As noted by a 350.org organiser,  “you still want to be humane and polite and kind to those people… if it becomes apparent that you cannot really persuade them, or it’s not going anywhere, it’s fine to say, we really appreciate the opportunity to speak to you, and thank you for sharing your thoughts and wish them to have a good day.”

Values-First, Not Facts-First

Successful climate conversations that counter misinformation start not with data, but with values and personal experience. Rather than opening with “Are you concerned about climate change?”, which can immediately trigger defensive responses, volunteers can find it far more productive to find common ground first.

The research shows that connecting climate impacts to lived experience is far more powerful than abstract statistics.

Cairns and Far North Environment Center organisers discovered this during their conversations program, with one organiser recounting that “a lot of people didn’t connect certain events like food shortages with climate change impacts.” Their conversations helped people make these connections through discussion rather than lecture.

This approach recognises that modern climate misinformation has evolved beyond outright denial. Today’s skeptics are more likely to acknowledge climate change while questioning human causation, renewable energy effectiveness, or the urgency of action.

By starting with shared experiences, such as extreme weather, rising costs, concerns for family, conversations can gently introduce new frameworks for understanding these issues. The key is helping people recognise they’re already experiencing climate impacts without necessarily labelling them as such. From there, the conversation becomes about shared experiences rather than contested science.

Indeed, the most successful climate conversation programs teach volunteers to:

  • Listen actively and without judgment
  • Validate emotion rather than fact-check beliefs
  • Ask values-based questions (e.g. “What do you care about most?”)
  • Avoid jargon, stats, or complex science unless invited

This values-first approach makes space for people to reconsider without feeling attacked. As one organiser reflected, “the whole purpose of training for a community conversation is to just unlearn that thing that I’m not an expert … The only story I need to know how to tell is my own story, and why I care about it and [then] get used to inviting people to share.”

Conversation programs such as those run by ACF, AYCC, 350.org, and Climate for Change also emphasised using storytelling, shared experience, and relatability. Several described roleplays and debriefs as crucial for training volunteers to handle tough conversations with calm and confidence. 

The 4Cs Framework for Misinformation

Successful climate conversations that tackle misinformation follow the “4Cs” structure: Connect, Context, Commitment, and Catapult. But when dealing with misinformation, each step requires particular care:

Connect means finding genuine common ground before introducing climate topics. Effective volunteers learn to ask: “Have you noticed a change in the weather?” or “How was that cyclone/heatwave/flood for you?” rather than opening with “Are you concerned about climate change?” The goal is to get people talking about their own experiences before introducing any broader framework.

Context involves linking personal experiences to larger patterns, but carefully. One trainer advises volunteers: “You are not the expert. You’re not meant to be the expert… You are just community members who really care.” The most effective approach is often saying something such as “I actually don’t know, and that’s okay… But my backyard flooded when it shouldn’t have last year, and I know that’s a direct result of climate change.”

Commitment is the pivot point, where the conversation gently turns toward action. Rather than overwhelming people with facts or data, the aim is to open the door to something manageable and meaningful. This might be asking: “Would you be interested in coming to a local event?” or “Would you consider talking to a friend about this?”

Catapult is the follow-up, the invitation to stay involved, whether that’s by attending a meeting, joining a community event, or taking the next conversation themselves. 

Volunteers are trained to stay emotionally grounded throughout the conversations, using techniques like mirroring, paraphrasing, and storytelling to build trust. When done well, these conversations don’t feel like persuasion. They feel like connection.

Language That Cuts Through Misinformation

The research reveals specific language strategies that help conversations penetrate misinformation barriers:

  • Use vivid, everyday language
    Terms like ‘toxic pollution’, ‘heatwaves’, ‘overheating’, and ‘dirty energy’ are more effective than neutral terms like ‘global warming’ or technical jargon.
  • Highlight impacts up front
    Loss frames outperform gain frames. People don’t like losing things and reminding them of this can create a sense of real urgency.
  • Place the blame clearly
    Messages about unfairness (of impacts and costs) persuade across political spectrums.
  • Avoid problematic terms
    Research shows that terms like ‘climate justice’, ‘climate action’, and ’emergency’ can polarise audiences along political lines, especially among right-leaning or low-environmental concern individuals.

Building Trust in Misinformation-Rich Environments

The research found that conversations between peers, known contacts, or trusted messengers are more likely to change beliefs and build trust, especially where scepticism exists. These relational approaches reduce defensiveness and increase perceived authenticity.

One effective strategy involves working through existing community networks rather than approaching people cold.

As a 350.org organiser suggested: “you need to establish good relationships with existing community groups, community hubs in those target electorates, talk to people at the markets, [draw on] connections to church groups or rotary clubs, soccer clubs, etc. Use those existing networks to start planting the seeds.”

Another organiser noted the effectiveness of addressing misinformation concerns directly in community events: “you could start with organising a talk show or community discussion about disinformation and misinformation as an issue to tackle… And then those people who come to these events because they’re already primed. Now they know that it is a problem that needs to be tackled.”

Culturally Grounded Approaches: The Three Cuppa Tea Rule

Culturally grounded conversation models are also extremely important, especially when working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. The Climate Justice Toolkit recommends yarning as an approach rooted in respect, deep listening, and relationship-building, following the “three cuppa tea” rule:

  • First cup — Get to know each other
  • Second cup — Build trust
  • Third cup — Talk about action

This rhythm reinforces a truth that applies across all climate conversation work: people need to feel seen and respected before they’re ready to talk about change. In communities where misinformation has taken hold, this patient, relationship-first approach becomes even more crucial.

The Three-Touch Strategy

The research reveals an important insight about shifting minds in misinformation-rich environments: change rarely happens in a single conversation.

As an organiser running a national conversations campaign explained: “we often talked about 3 points of contact being required in communities for people to start to shift their thinking. And often the 1st conversation was that 1st point of contact.”

This understanding relieves pressure on individual volunteers to achieve immediate conversion while emphasising the importance of each positive interaction in a longer journey toward understanding.

Why This Matters: Building Resilience Against Misinformation

Climate conversations offer something that fact-checking websites and social media corrections cannot: genuine human connection and trust-building. In an information environment where people increasingly distrust institutions and media, peer-to-peer conversations create spaces for reflection and reconsideration that algorithms cannot replicate.

The research shows that successful conversation programs don’t just change individual minds. They can help build community resilience against misinformation by creating networks of people equipped to have thoughtful, respectful conversations about complex issues.

Final Thoughts…

In a world awash with climate misinformation, fear, and polarisation, conversation can seem like a slow tool. But the research reveals it may be one of the most powerful tools we have for cutting through the noise.

Through careful listening, shared values, and human connection, climate conversations do more than debunk myths. They build the social trust and communication skills that communities need to navigate an increasingly complex information landscape.

Programs that centre relationship-building, cultural humility, and strategic patience are not just reaching people across ideological divides. They’re creating resilient networks capable of countering misinformation and building collective understanding.

As climate impacts grow in tandem with the surge of misinformation designed to delay action, these conversation skills become essential infrastructure for democratic society. 

Explore more resources related to this article and 2025 research project conducted by the Advocacy Research Network, in partnership with the Climate Justice Coalition.

Explore Further

Share Resource

Share on LinkedIn

Topics:

Collection:

Tags:

Format:

Language:


image Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs CC BY-NC-ND

Contact a Commons librarian if you would like to connect with the author

Topics