The urgency of climate change policy and innovation is met by the loud voices of skeptics, who divert attention from the pressing realities of a warming planet. This skepticism is not just an academic debate. Pundits wield influence over policy, corporate strategy, and collective behavior and often have political and economic wind at their backs. Their opinions cannot be ignored. In fact, as voters, they have the power to muzzle politicians and push corporate leaders into full retreat. Being an expert communicator on the issues will be as critical as being scientifically savvy.

I recently conducted a quick poll on “X,” asking my social media community to rank the most common pushback comments against climate change. This is not a statistically significant poll, but the results tell an insightful story: 52.2% suggest it’s a natural phenomenon, 34.8% call it a hoax, 4.3% argue that science is wrong, and 8.7% recommend it’s cheaper to adapt.

As we approach the United National Climate Change meeting COP29 in Baku, where global leaders will gather to discuss solutions, it’s vital to remember that these discussions will be grounded in science. With the clock ticking on a sustainable world, can we afford to be distracted by outdated or misguided beliefs? Can we focus on actionable, science-based solutions to combat climate change and simultaneously be prepared to address the chirping of the naysayers?

[Susan Joy Hassol, a climate change communicator and analyst has made climate science accessible for 25 years. As director of Climate Communication, she helps scientists communicate effectively and provides accessible background to policymakers, journalists, and advocates.]

“It’s a Natural Phenomenon” (52.2%)

The belief that climate change is naturally occurring is rooted in scientifically proven historical facts. The earth’s climate has undergone periods of meaningful change — ice ages, volcanic eruptions, and solar variations have all shaped our planet’s climate. However, this position collapses like holding on to a melting ice flow, considering the current crisis’s pace and scale.

Professor Michael Mann, a climate scientist at the University of Pennsylvania and Director of Penn Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media, explains, “While natural factors influence the climate, the unprecedented warming we’ve seen over the past century is almost entirely due to human activity.” Professor Mann has made this argument in his work and public communications, emphasizing the overwhelming scientific evidence and how natural climate fluctuations over millennia cannot account for the rapid warming seen in recent decades.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reinforces Professor Mann’s assertion, reporting that human influence is the dominant cause of today’s global warming. Our industrial activities, deforestation, and fossil fuel consumption have led to rising levels of greenhouse gases, such as CO2 and methane, primarily responsible for the temperature spike.

As world leaders deliberate over policies and strategies during COP29, the scientific community will continue to underscore that we cannot stop our carbon footprint without addressing human-contributed causes. We delay concrete climate action by dismissing human impact, leaving future generations vulnerable to even more severe consequences.

“It’s a Hoax” (34.8%)

One-third of poll respondents suggest that climate change is a hoax, the most disheartening poll result. This claim, often perpetuated by conspiracy theorists, disregards years of research, data collection, and collaboration among nations.

Climate scientists have long been aware of the challenges they face in public perception. Katharine Hayhoe, PhD, the Chief Scientist at The Nature Conservancy, says, “The evidence for climate change is so strong that denying it is like saying the Earth is flat.” Dr. Hayhoe also holds the position of Horn Distinguished Professor and Endowed Professor of Public Policy and Public Law at Texas Tech University and has served as a lead author for the Second, Third, and Fourth U.S. National Climate Assessments.

Leading science-based organizations like NASA, NOAA, and the IPCC rely on rigorous peer-reviewed research to provide accurate, evidence-based insights into climate dynamics. The claim that climate change is politically motivated is a dangerous distraction.

During the Baku climate gathering, we will hear more about pressing discussions about cross-border cooperation, climate financing, and renewable energy solutions. Dismissing the issue as a hoax — allowing those conspiracy theorists to gain traction and influence — impedes the global community’s ability to form cohesive strategies. COP29 negotiations must push past denials and focus on shared responsibility, creating frameworks that recognize the global scale of the issue.

“Science is Wrong” (4.3%)

A far smaller percentage of respondents believe that “science is wrong” about climate change. While healthy skepticism should (always) contribute to scientific progress, when it stems from misinformation, it can be damaging — even deadly. Climate science, in particular, has a solid foundation built on decades of empirical data and global observation.

Professor James Hansen, formerly Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and now Adjunct Professor at Columbia University’s Earth Institute, where he directs the Program on Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions, points out, “The science of climate change is as solid as the science of gravity.”

Technological advances, such as satellite data and ice core samples, have strengthened scientists’ confidence in their findings. These technology tools reveal that the planet is warming at a rate not seen in millions of years, and the cause is undeniably human.

At COP29, reinforcing recent scientific evidence and the year-over-year trends will remain paramount. As countries discuss emissions targets, clean energy transitions, and long-term sustainability, science must continue to serve as the foundation for decisions. The challenge will be to ensure that skepticism is not weaponized to derail agreements or implementation. Science must guide the conversation toward urgent action and investment in climate resilience that improves the well-being of developed and emerging countries.

“It’s Cheaper to Adapt” (8.7%)

Economics always drives conversation and policy outcomes. Some believe it would be cheaper to adapt to the consequences of climate change rather than mitigate them. This may seem pragmatic, but it overlooks the actual long-term costs—financial and human—of inaction. It is always “cheaper to do nothing” when considered in isolation from all other factors.

The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have studied economic climate-related disasters such as hurricanes, wildfires, and rising sea levels. The costs are already staggering and are only set to grow as significant climate events become more frequent and severe. Preventative measures, such as investing in renewable energy and sustainable infrastructure, are far more cost-effective than reactive ones, resulting in employment training and compensation that elevates communities.

This perspective — focused on short-term financial thinking — will surface during COP29. Some countries with lower carbon footprints or economies heavily reliant on fossil fuels may push for adaptation rather than mitigation as a cost-saving strategy.

Christiana Figueres, former Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and now co-founder of Global Optimism, and co-author of the recently published book The Future We Choose: Surviving the Climate Crisis, said, “Mitigation is non-negotiable. Without it, adaptation costs will be astronomical, and the human toll unimaginable.”

The discussions in Baku must stress the need for proactive, long-term solutions rather than reactive measures that place future generations and jeopardize the progress of emerging regions at greater risk.

The Path Forward: Preparing Great Communicators

Conversations at COP29 will shape future global climate policy action. World leaders, businesses, and organizations must act decisively. Purpose-driven leadership is critical at this moment. However, that leadership must also be able to sway naysayers or put their comments into perspective for others. The community of pundits is growing. It cannot be ignored.

While conversation centers on the warming planet, we must connect the ecological dots. Climate change also impacts a multitude of other life-threatening concerns. The frequency of extreme weather events is a tipping point for poor air quality, increased vector-borne diseases, and increased food and water insecurity. Using sunscreen or wearing a hat is a given — not a solution.

As the COP29 discussions unfold, it’s clear that the voices advocating for climate action will need to be prepared and their messages more compelling than those seeding doubt. Sustainability, resilience, and equity must be the decision-making goal. The skeptics will remain vocal, but the growing body of scientific evidence and the increasing demand for climate action cannot be ignored. Yet, we must not get mired in science and forget that good communications are compelling and easy to digest.

Savvy communicators will recognize that advocates for action and those who disagree are not arguing apples to apples. They likely have competing interests — they are focused on another priority —lost jobs, budget allocation or political affiliations.

The future depends not just on adapting to a deteriorating situation but on preventing disaster in the first place. As we look ahead to COP29, we must somehow turn the tide together — but only if we listen to the ambient noise and not pretend that we can get the job done by talking over naysayers or pretending their words are irrelevant to the conversation.

Somehow, we must cultivate a wave of “great communicators” who can align objectives, strategies, (and fears) with the common need for a better, safer, sustainable world where we survive and thrive.

Let’s move forward, not as adversaries, but as allies seeking common ground for the greater good.