On Hurricanes and Hoaxes: A Case for Finding Common Ground
After Hurricane Helene made landfall in the U.S. in autumn 2024, killing over 100 people in North Carolina alone, I scrolled through Twitter and was shocked to see thread after thread accusing Democrats of manipulating the storm. According to these posts, it was a manufactured catastrophe designed to access critical minerals, punish red states ahead of the election, or even claimed as God’s punishment for Democratic policies such as abortion. It would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous.
As climate change intensifies, so do the disasters that come with it. Conspiracies thrive in disaster zones. When something big happens, people search for answers, and more importantly, for someone to blame. They are drawn to to the idea that powerful groups are secretly manipulating the world around us. Research has shown that conspiracy theories actively undermine environmental policies by steering people away from climate-friendly actions. In the wake of major hurricanes, misinformation can weaken public trust in disaster response agencies, leading people to reject evacuation orders or refuse government aid. Online conspiracies have even inspired real-world threats, with FEMA officials receiving death threats for their supposed role in “weaponizing” natural disasters. Meanwhile, meteorologists have been harassed and even doxxed for supposedly “pushing the climate agenda.”
Indeed, conspiracy theories are intensifying as quickly as the storms themselves — and spreading even faster. Conspiracy theories are most powerful when they exploit deep-seated fears and insecurities. A fundamental human motivation is self-enhancement — the need to feel good about oneself and maintain self-esteem. People also want to believe they are heading toward a good future and that their prospects are secure. Climate change presents an existential threat to these beliefs, not just about individual morality, but about the legitimacy of entire societies. Admitting the scale of the crisis means reckoning with uncomfortable truths: that our way of life is unsustainable, that the systems we rely on are deeply flawed, that those in power are failing us, and that the future will be radically different. For many, it’s easier to deny reality than to face it.
So, what do we do?
When my sister called me in November, she asked what to say to Mum and Dad. She’s just 16 and doesn’t know all the science behind climate change yet. I wanted to start telling her about carbon cycles and feedback loops, about ocean currents and tipping points, and all the catastrophes that will come. But instead, I told her to take a deep breath, go back downstairs, and enjoy dinner with our parents. Because here’s the truth: Arguing with a diehard conspiracy theorist will not change their mind.
____________________________________
“Some of the most powerful climate action will come not from perfect ideological alignment, but from productive tension, from unlikely partnerships that find common ground”
____________________________________
Instead of wasting energy debating those who refuse to listen, we need to focus on the much bigger middle ground: people who are skeptical, uncertain or disengaged. Many feel psychologically distant from climate change, seeing it as someone else’s problem or as an abstract issue that doesn’t affect their daily lives. Others, particularly in wealthy countries, experience solution aversion— fearing that climate solutions will be worse than climate change itself, and that they will cost them their lifestyle and freedoms. And then there are those who feel powerless. The crises pile up, the disasters get worse, and it starts to feel like nothing we do will ever be enough. This doomism is just as paralyzing as outright denial.
However, there is hope here, too. This middle ground can be nudged toward action. This is where we, as climate communicators, should focus our attention.
If we want to shift the middle ground, we have to be persistent. Be kind. Be patient. And most importantly, be willing to work with people we don’t fully agree with. Some of the most powerful climate action will come not from perfect ideological alignment, but from productive tension, from unlikely partnerships that find common ground despite their differences. We don’t have to agree on everything to make progress.
Climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe argues that we should begin these conversations with our shared values. Instead of hammering people with facts, we should start with what we agree on. Energy, for example, is common ground; we all want reliable, affordable power. And transforming our energy systems is the fastest way to cut emissions. The same goes for water; everyone wants safe, clean, unpolluted water. These are entry points, openings for discussion, not just about climate change itself, but about the future we want to build.
So no, I wont be spending my time arguing with people who think hurricanes are government-controlled weapons, even my own family. Instead, I’ll continue talking about climate with everyone else who will listen, finding common ground and shifting perspectives. I suggest you do the same. Because we need as many people as possible, in every country and every industry, to join this fight.
Rosie Semlyen is a graduate student at the Columbia Climate School and a research assistant at the National Center for Disaster Preparedness, specializing in disaster risk management and climate policy. This story was first published on the State of the Planet website, and is published here courtesy of the Columbia Climate School, Columbia University. Views and opinions expressed here are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Columbia Climate School, Earth Institute or Columbia University.
