> Authors should send a 500-word abstract (excluding references) in English to Sara García Santamaría,

> Abstract submission deadline: 5 May 2023.

> All abstracts must include the title, full name, affiliation, and contact information.

> Decisions on acceptance will be communicated by 15 May 2023.

We welcome original, state-of-the-art contributions that broaden our theoretical and/or empirical understanding of climate mis/disinformation, as well as a variety of methodological approaches. This includes, but is not limited to, the following debates:

> Authenticity and mis/disinformation: How do performances of authenticity influence our perception of untruthful information?

> Common-sense versus scientific “truth” in a post-factual era: Claiming ordinary’s people truth while dismissing scientific facticity as one of the strategies of epistemological populism (Bergmann, 2020; Hameleers, 2020; Prasad, 2019).

> Vested interests, power and misinformation: A recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2022) sees misinformation as a tactic “to maintain the status quo by actors in positions of power”. What are the vested interests behind climate mis/disinformation?

> State-sponsored disinformation: A chief sponsor of climate mis/disinformation has been the State and its institutions, be it governments, parties, or security agencies, which often count with sophisticated techniques and vast resources. What role does the State play in denying climate change or delaying action?

> Big tech, algorithms and amplification: How are social media algorithms amplifying climate mis/disinformation? What action is being taken?

> Climate-change, activism and “inactivism”: When scientific evidence of climate change becomes blatant, how do far-right organisations and vested interest respond?Are we witnessing a transition from denialism to “inactivism” (Mann, 2021)?

> From denialism to “delayism”: Recent studies have identified a reduction in climate change scepticism. In this context, factual interests are experimenting with more subtle tactics to distract citizens from this topic and delay action (Lamb et al., 2020). How are these tactics evolving and how can we analyse them?

> Climate change advocates, elitism and hypocrisy: Politicians, celebrities and the “climatism” cartel (Bohr, 2016) are often accused of being hypocrites who defend elitist policies that damage citizens’ interests (King, Janulewicz and Arcostanzo, 2022; Marquardt, Oliveira and Lederer, 2022). How does the connection between populists’ alleged anti-elitism connect with climate mis/disinformation campaigns?

> Green (eco)populism and green patriotism: Some studies suggest that far-right parties support green populism (Stone Jr., 2022) and green patriotism (Schaller and Carius, 2019), co-opting discourses of regional and national environmental conservation while rejecting green energy policies and international treaties. Is the far-right abandoning clear climate change denial?

> Ecobordering: Far-right discourses on climate change often blame migrants for threatening the conservation of the national territory, and point to the Global South (rather than wealthy industrialised nations) as responsible for major environmental destruction (Turner and Bailey, 2021). What are the connections between far-right chauvinism and climate mis/disinformation?

> Climate mis/disinformation and its consequences: Misinformation has been shown to lead to misconceptions (Ranney and Clark, 2016), to decrease people’s support to mitigation policies (van der Linden et al., 2017), and to foster social polarization (Cook, Lewandowsky and Ecker, 2017). How can we better assess its consequences?