They mapped themselves

Apparently we’re living through an information crisis.

Scroll online for more than a few minutes and you’ll probably find evidence: coordinated campaigns denying climate science, fear-mongering about renewable energy, conspiracy theories about environmental activists. Many argue that this isn’t just random noise; it’s a deliberate strategy by vested interests to delay climate action. While I’m not sure it’s anything unique to our time, it certainly has been a powerful weapon to stop climate action.

Fossil fuel interests and their allies have weaponised our information sources to spread doubt, confusion, and outright lies. The result? Delayed policy action, confused publics, and a democratic discourse polluted by bad-faith actors.

It’s enough to tear your hair out!

But luckily, our own research network has found something more productive to do…. expose it.

We’ve been building tools to track these influence networks. Our latest project InfluenceTracker.org maps the connections between anti-climate groups, their funding sources, and their propaganda campaigns. But recently, we stumbled onto something extraordinary: a rare opportunity to peek behind the curtain and see exactly who’s spreading what messages and how they’re all connected.

An inquiry becomes a confession booth

In September 2024, the Australian Senate launched an inquiry into the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. The proposed legislation was to give the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) new powers to combat the spread of harmful misinformation and disinformation on digital platforms.

The bill aimed to require social media platforms and other digital services to:

• Assess and report on misinformation risks

• Publish their policies for managing false information

• Develop media literacy plans

Sounds reasonable, right?

While it was voted down, with only five Members supporting it (four Greens and Independent Wilkie), the inquiry included public submissions from Australians on whether and how the government should regulate online misinformation. And the responses came flooding in. Hundreds of submissions from researchers, civil society groups, tech companies, media organisations, and concerned citizens.

But here’s where it gets interesting.

The inquiry also attracted submissions from some of the very groups most invested in spreading misinformation, particularly around climate change, renewable energy, and environmental policy. They wanted to put forth their arguments. They had to explain their positions. And crucially, they had to reveal who they support and who they oppose.

In other words, they mapped their own network for us.

The climate denial network, self-reported

We analysed all 255 submissions using AI-powered text analysis, extracting not just what each group said, but crucially, who they mentioned, both positively (as allies and sources) and negatively (as enemies and targets). This is preliminary research - note - we’re still working through the full dataset and verifying patterns, so some results might change! But the initial results are remarkable.

Nearly one in three submissions came from anti-environment groups/submitters. Of the 255 submissions we analysed, 72 (28.2%) showed anti-environment or anti-climate indicators. These weren’t just concerned citizens worried about free speech, these were what appeared to be semi-coordinated actors with explicit agendas against climate action and renewable energy.

But the real revelations came when we mapped their connections.

The spider at the center of the web

Atlas Network emerged as the single most-mentioned organisation, with 26 mentions across the submissions, and every single one of them negative. This libertarian think tank, which funds climate denial groups globally, is clearly seen as a central antagonist by pro-environment submitters. And for good reason: our analysis shows Atlas Network-linked organisations like the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) appearing repeatedly as both targets of criticism (18 mentions) and as groups cited approvingly by anti-environment submitters (4 positive mentions from the denial network).

This is the smoking gun: IPA seems to serves as a bridge node, connecting international fossil fuel interests to local Australian climate denial campaigns. They piggy-back their anti-Net-Zero stance on community concerns about the roll out of renewable energy projects.

Anti-renewables as a vector

Using anti-renewables sentiment as a vector for climate action denial came through strongly in other submissions as well. Well-known sceptics such as Peter Ridd claimed that the vast government funding supporting the ‘net-zero delusion,’ was the true source of misinformation. Dr Anne Smith of Rainforest Reserves Australia argued that Australia’s climate and energy framework is compromised by misinformation, selective accounting, and ideological manipulation, and groups like CWO REZist Inc. argued that the ‘climate change and renewable narrative’ is being forced upon the public using ‘absurd catastrophism’, while proponents actively use disinformation (e.g., misrepresenting project approvals and costs) to push projects through.

It’s a clever inversion: position yourself as the victim of misinformation, and suddenly your opposition to climate solutions looks like principled truth-seeking.

The usual suspects cite each other

Anti- environment submitters didn’t hide their alliances. When we examined who they cited positively, a familiar rogues’ gallery emerged:

• William Happer (physicist and CO2 Coalition founder)

• Bjorn Lomborg (the sceptical environmentalist)

• Richard Lindzen (retired MIT professor and climate contrarian)

• Judith Curry (former climate scientist turned sceptic)

• Even President Trump made an appearance

These aren’t diverse independent voices. They’re a network of the same debunked “experts” cited in circular fashion to create the illusion of scientific debate where none exists.

The attack network

When we mapped who anti-environment groups attack, the pattern is equally revealing:

• CSIRO (Australia’s national science agency): 11 negative mentions

• Climate Council: 4 negative mentions

• The Sunrise Project: 4 negative mentions

• IPCC: 4 negative mentions

Meanwhile, pro-environment submitters overwhelmingly criticised:

• Atlas Network: 22 negative mentions

• Institute of Public Affairs: 13 negative mentions

• Advance Australia: 9 negative mentions

• Fossil fuel industry/companies: 17 combined negative mentions

• Santos: 9 negative mentions

• Gina Rinehart: 7 negative mentions

Perhaps nothing illustrates the information war more clearly than the treatment of CSIRO. Anti-environment groups mentioned Australia’s premier scientific institution 11 times, all negatively. Pro-environment groups mentioned it 10 times. All positively.

When the nation’s scientific consensus becomes a partisan battleground, democracy itself is under threat.

The super-connectors

Some individuals stood out as potential network hubs. Professor Aynsley Kellow led with 40 total connections (6 positive, 33 negative): the most connected submitter. Dr. Jennifer Marohasy, an independent scientist and climate sceptic/contrarian, made 19 connections (7 positive, 12 negative). There were also - a surprisingly large number to us at least - anti-climate action individuals who chose to submit to the inquiry. It seems like climate and renewables is a pre-eminent battleground of misinformation in Australia.

But perhaps most revealing was ADVANCE, the political advocacy group that submitted multiple times. Their submissions specifically criticised:

• Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making

• Australian Greens Party

• QUT Digital Research

• Ironically, even Atlas Network (despite ideological alignment); as the Executive Director stated ‘ADVANCE has nothing to do with the Atlas Network. I did not know what it was until asked about it by a journalist’.

Whether this denial is genuine or strategic, it reveals how anti-renewables messaging has proliferated beyond its fossil fuel origins. New groups are emerging, some perhaps genuinely community-focused, others clearly ideological, but all converging on similar narratives about renewable energy being unreliable, destructive, and economically disastrous. The network doesn’t require formal coordination when the talking points travel freely, adopted and amplified by each new actor who shares the underlying opposition to climate action.

The fossil fuel connection

Following the money is always instructive. Groups with clear fossil fuel connections like FutureCoal (the international coal industry lobby) submitted, as expected. But more interesting were the seemingly grassroots groups with anti-renewable energy stances. Here’s just a few examples:

• National Rational Energy Network (12 connections)

• Wimmera Mallee Environmental and Agricultural Protection Association (2 connections, both negative toward renewable infrastructure)

• CWO REZist Inc. (10 connections, all negative toward renewable energy zones)

These groups frame themselves as community organisations protecting rural Australia. But here’s the twist: they appeared to be using the inquiry itself as a platform to argue that pro-renewable energy messaging constitutes misinformation.

This is climate delay rebranded for the 2020s. Rather than deny climate science outright (that battle is largely lost), they’re now claiming that the solutions - such as renewable energy, rapid decarbonisation, climate policy - are the real misinformation. It’s a clever rhetorical move: co-opt the language of information integrity to argue that acting on climate change is itself a form of deception.

In their submissions, these groups, climate sceptics, and anti-renewables think tanks portray renewable energy as unreliable, destructive to communities, and economically disastrous. Whether genuinely grassroots or not, they’re deploying a sophisticated delay tactic: aim the misinformation narrative against climate action itself. In doing so they turn an inquiry about false information into a platform for opposing climate action.

What’s next? Mapping the blockers

Here’s where we need your help.

For years, we’ve been mapping the pro-environmental movement on www.theenvironmentalmovement.org who’s fighting for climate action, conservation, and a sustainable future. But this inquiry data reveals something equally important: a detailed map of who’s working against environmental progress.

The question is: how do we map it?

We now have data on a large and growing number of anti-environment groups, their connections, their tactics, and their targets. We can see the network nodes, the bridge organisations like IPA, the super-connectors like Professor Kellow, and the coordinated messaging patterns. But where should this information live?

Some options we’re considering:

• A separate “Blockers & Delayers” section on the existing environmental movement map

• A completely new domain dedicated to tracking climate denial and delay networks across Oceania (what should we call it?)

• Integration with InfluenceTracker.org to show funding flows alongside organisational connections

• A dual-map approach showing environmental advocates on one side, opponents on the other, with their interactions visible.

We’d love to hear from you:

• How would YOU want to explore this data?

• What questions would you want to answer about the anti-environment network?

• Should we treat them as part of the same ecosystem as environmental groups, or keep them separate?

• What would make this most useful for journalists, researchers, activists, and concerned citizens trying to understand who’s really behind the opposition to climate action?

Drop your thoughts in the comments, or email us directly. This is an exciting new project we’d love your feedback on; mapping not just the movement for change, but the coordinated network working against it. As we check and confirm our findings, your insights could help shape how we shine a light on these connections and make this information accessible to everyone who needs it.

Because democracy works better when we can see who’s trying to manipulate it.