Two new analyses of climate discourse in media outlets and on social media document familiar patterns of rhetoric—but also uncover unexpected nuances.
In one study, researchers used a computer algorithm to ferret out the strategies used in climate communication by both advocates and opponents of climate action [1].
Instead of relying on predefined categories, the team assembled a database of 21,513 documents from 26 climate-advocate sources and 26,930 documents from 17 climate-skeptic sources, then turned their program loose. (Both the database and the algorithm are freely available for other researchers to use in future studies.)
In broad strokes, the results of the analysis are familiar: Climate advocates focus on solutions and aim to inspire fear and sadness in readers. Skeptics emphasize anti-elite rhetoric and seek to trigger anger and disgust. But while climate advocates are conventionally thought of as the “trust the science” crew, it was climate skeptics who leaned most heavily on science in their communications strategy. More than 70% of skeptic discourse employed a scientific or technical frame.
That’s in line with other recent findings that climate skeptics tend to deploy images with science-y vibes to sow doubt about the scientific consensus on climate change.
Meanwhile climate advocates, traditionally dismissed as head-in-the-clouds bleeding hearts, emphasized pragmatism and economics. Climate advocates walk a particularly fine line, the analysis shows: their language often invokes a crisis, but they are also more likely to express positive emotions and optimism.
That can be a tough balance to strike in 280 characters or less, suggests a second study, the first in-depth analysis of climate communication by U.S. politicians on social media [2].
For that study, a separate group of researchers analyzed more than 2,800 posts relevant to climate change that members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives made on Twitter (now X) between January and December of 2021.
As expected, 93% of Republican posts reflected “discourses of delay,” aimed at slowing or avoiding climate action, while 97% of Democratic posts promoted “discourses of action.” Democrats also posted far more frequently, meaning most climate-related content overall supported action.
Yet the most intriguing finding is the emergence of a “murky middle.” Some posts—especially from Democrats—endorsed climate action in vague terms or mentioned it alongside other priorities without specifics. These ambiguous messages could support either action or delay depending on interpretation.
The researchers suggest this ambiguity may create opportunities for public engagement. Vague statements can invite constituents to push for clarity, turning passive messaging into active dialogue.
Additional nuances emerged: older politicians and those from ethnic minority groups were more likely to use action-oriented language, hinting at demographic influences on climate communication.
Overall, the research shows that climate messaging is more emotionally complex—and less ideologically predictable—than it first appears, with both sides perhaps adapting in response to each other and leaving space for interpretation, persuasion, and public interaction.
[1] Sweeney L. et al. “Reading the climate room through unsupervised analysis of unfiltered climate perspectives.” Scientific Reports 2026.
[2] McAllister L. et al. “How do U.S. politicians communicate about climate change on X? Examining discourses of delay and action.” Climatic Change 2026.
Image: rawpixel.com
