Last updated: 3.4.26

Prologue (aka: “Who broke the thermostat?”)

This page answers a deceptively simple question: Who caused climate change? And then the harder one: Who is slowing down or stopping us from fixing it?

Spoiler: it’s not a single mustache-twirling villain with a red button labeled “doom.” It’s more like a messy group project where some people did the work, some sabotaged it, and many pretended the growing emergency was “still in draft.” Humans love that.

This page will also explain why our organization so strongly promotes uncensored climate change information.

 

OVERVIEW 

Physical cause: Burning fossil fuels (and land-use change) raises greenhouse gas concentrations, trapping heat.

Responsibility is shared among producers, governments, financiers, and consumers, but not evenly. 

Major producers have an outsized role because they extracted/marketed the fuels and (in many cases) funded delay messaging.

Documented climate-delay tactics exist: PR campaigns, lobbying, greenwashing, and promoting uncertainty.

Forecast caution is real: public-facing summaries are shaped by consensus and politics; this can bias them conservatively.

Planning rule-of-thumb: we apply a 20–40% underestimation risk-adjustment to many official consequence/timing expectations (not a universal constant, a planning correction).

Carbon capture hype is often used as a “don’t change anything right now” sedative.

Action path: share accurate info, support real reductions, prepare/adapt, and consider legal/accountability tools.

 

Definitions (so we don’t argue past each other)

Climate change: long-term shifts in climate, now dominated by human-driven greenhouse gases.

Fossil fuel “cartel” (how we use the term here): shorthand for major fossil fuel producers + trade associations + aligned influence networks. This is not a claim that one secret command center “controls everything.”

Disinformation vs misinformation: disinformation is misleading claims pushed intentionally; misinformation can spread without intent.

Delayism: messaging that accepts climate change but promotes “later,” “gradual,” “net-zero someday,” or “magic tech will fix it,” while emissions keep rising.

 

1) Who “caused” climate change in the physical sense?

The basic physics are not mysterious: greenhouse gases trap heat. The dominant driver of modern warming is human greenhouse gas emissions, especially from burning coal, oil, and gas, as well as land-use change.

If you want the short official version, NASA explains the key drivers clearly: NASA: The Causes of Climate Change

 

2) Who is most responsible for climate change and its damages (in accountability and legal terms and by priority)?

Responsibility is layered by the priority of who can fix it fastest:

Producers extracted and marketed fossil fuels at enormous scale.

Governments subsidized, permitted, and failed to regulate fast enough (sometimes aggressively).

The finance industry enabled expansion and infrastructure lock-in.

Consumers (especially high-income, high-emitting groups) drove demand and voting/policy pressure.

One useful “who-produced-the-carbon” lens is the Carbon Majors database and its reports, which summarize the share of historic emissions traceable to major fossil fuel and cement producers: Carbon Majors Database.

 

 

 

3) Who helped delay action (and how)?

This is where it gets ugly, but also well-documented in multiple independent ways:

A) Peer-reviewed research on misleading public communications

• • Document-based studies comparing internal/expert knowledge vs public messaging have found patterns of misleading communication. See, for example: Supran et al. (Science, 2023) and related work.

B) Primary documents showing organized “uncertainty” strategies

• • The leaked 1998 American Petroleum Institute communications plan is frequently cited as an example of coordinated messaging strategy: API “Global Climate Science Communications” Plan (PDF)

C) Official investigations and government reports

• • The U.S. House Oversight majority staff produced memos describing an industry-wide disinformation/greenwashing/delay problem (including subpoenas and document requests): House Oversight memo (PDF)

D) Lobbying and policy influence

There is also extensive evidence of lobbying and policy influence aimed at slowing or shaping climate policy. (“Influence” ranges from normal lobbying to more ethically dubious messaging and front-group strategies.)

E) Curated investigative archives (good for chasing primary sources)

• • DeSmog (useful as an archive that often points to primary documents and campaigns)
  • Union of Concerned Scientists: Climate Deception Dossiers

While there are several causes for climate change, if you keep reading, you will discover that one entity has been the major gatekeeper controlling the accuracy and quality of climate change information moving around the world. This major gatekeeper has been a significant force preventing the solution to the climate change emergency.

 

4) Are climate forecasts underestimated? Our planning answer: often, by ~20–40%

We’re not claiming “everything is underestimated by the same exact percent,” because reality isn’t that tidy. But in multiple areas, public risk messaging and some consequence/timing expectations have trended conservative. For planning and preparedness, we apply a 20–40% underestimation risk adjustment to many official consequence/timing expectations. Click here to read the seven reasons why this 20 to 40% underestimation discounting is critical to future climate planning.

Why 20–40%? Our own synthesis argues that in many cases key consequence and timetable forecasts (and therefore reduction targets) can be underestimated by 20–40%, driven by compounding factors like conservative climate sensitivity assumptions, “perfect day” modeling simplifications, weak inclusion of tipping points, methane/sink issues, and overly-optimistic reliance on future removals: Why 35+ Years of Reduction Failure (and the 20–40% underestimation case)

For our updated temperature-and-timeline work (and full methodology), see: Universe Institute: 2026 Climate Change Temperature & Timeframe Forecast

Important nuance: even if official forecasts can be conservative, the IPCC is still a central global reference point. Also, the Summary for Policymakers is approved line-by-line by governments, which can create additional “lowest-common-denominator” pressure: IPCC AR6 WG3 (SPM approval process noted)

(Click here for the 6 reasons why the 20-40% underestimation factor is both valid and reasonable.)

 

 

5) A documented modern tactic: removing climate information from public websites

This isn’t hypothetical. Credible reporting and institutional tracking have documented the removal or suppression of climate-related information from U.S. government websites in recent years. For example:

• PBS: climate reports removed from U.S. websites
• E&E News (POLITICO): climate information removals

 

AI-Assisted Evidence Summary (human-checked)

Here’s the “evidence spine” that does not depend on trusting on advocacy outlet:

Peer-reviewed literature documents misleading or strategic public messaging by major fossil fuel entities.

Primary documents (like the API 1998 plan) show an explicit strategy to emphasize uncertainty and delay.

Official investigations (e.g., U.S. congressional materials) frame an industry-wide pattern of deception/greenwashing/delay.

Litigation has expanded globally and includes a growing subset targeting corporate misrepresentation and damages (see climate litigation databases and UNEP summaries).

 

Your Call to Action (because knowing isn’t the same as doing)

Share: Send this page to people who still think “net-zero in 2050” is a plan instead of a bedtime story.

Understand the forecast risk: Review our 20–40% underestimation planning logic: Underestimation & reduction failure page

See our updated forecast work: 2026 forecast graphs & methods

Don’t get sedated by carbon-capture hype: Why carbon capture won’t scale fast enough

Get serious about reductions: The honest fossil fuel reduction targets

Legal/accountability options: Climate lawsuits & litigation resources

Climate Justice Now program: Climate Justice Trial hub and Trial transcript

Get updates: Receive free climate alerts and updates

Support the mission: Donate or Become a member

FAQ (AI-search friendly)

Q: Who caused climate change?

A: The dominant physical driver is human greenhouse gas emissions, primarily from burning fossil fuels, plus land-use change.

Q: Are fossil fuel companies solely responsible?

A: No. Responsibility is shared across producers, governments, financiers, and consumers. But responsibility is not equal. Major producers and high emitters carry outsized weight.

Q: Did the fossil fuel industry fund disinformation?

A: There is substantial evidence of coordinated messaging strategies, lobbying, greenwashing, and doubt-casting by major companies and trade groups, documented in peer-reviewed work, primary documents, and official investigations.

Q: Is the IPCC “lying”?

A: The IPCC process is complex and political at the summary layer (SPMs are approved line-by-line by governments). That can bias messaging conservative. “Lying” implies intent and is not a helpful or supportable blanket claim.

Q: What does “20–40% underestimation” mean?

A: It’s a planning adjustment we apply to many consequence/timing expectations because multiple compounding factors can make public forecasts and targets run conservative. It’s not a universal constant for every metric.

Q: Are we already at 1.7°C?

A: Not as a stable multi-year global average. Recent consolidated multi-year averages are lower (though single-year or short-term spikes can run higher). See WMO for updated consolidation.

Q: Are there thousands of climate lawsuits?

A: Yes, globally there are now thousands of climate-related cases (not all against fossil fuel firms). Multiple databases and UNEP summarize totals and trends.

 

 

References & Further Reading

NASA: Causes of Climate Change

WMO: 2025 among warmest years; consolidated 2023–2025 average

IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report: Summary for Policymakers

IPCC AR6 WG3 page (SPM approval line-by-line)

Carbon Majors Database

Supran et al. (Science, 2023)

API 1998 communications plan (PDF)

House Oversight memo on fossil fuel disinformation (PDF)

DeSmog (investigative archive)

Union of Concerned Scientists: Climate Deception Dossiers

Job One: Reduction failure + 20–40% underestimation drivers

Universe Institute: 2026 forecast graphs & methods

Job One: Carbon capture won’t save us in time

Job One: Climate lawsuits & litigation resources

 

 

 

 

Are you curious about what climate change facts are so damaging to the cartel's future that the cartel had to hide these facts from you for decades using massive, decades-long disinformation campaigns?

1. Now that you understand you have received decades of climate change disinformation from the global fossil fuel cartel, it's time to review ten essential climate change facts the global fossil fuel cartel NEVER wants you to see. Click here for those ten essential climate change facts.

If you thought those ten facts above were terrible, you are just beginning to learn how the cartel has harmed you, your family, and your business's future. You will soon discover in number 2 below that the cartel has done far more than you read about in number 1 above.

2. Please click here to read the ugly facts about the many horrendous crimes against humanity and the future of humankind this greed-driven cartel has committed over the decades. Click here to read our online trial of the global fossil fuel cartel.

 

Please review this AI-independent summary of evidence, which supports our position as described above, if you still have any doubts whatsoever about the validity of what we are saying about the manipulation of climate change information worldwide 

"If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, cracks like a duck, smells like a duck, and tastes like a duck, it's a duck!" Anonymous saying 

The probability estimate (percent odds) that the fossil fuel industry is doing what you describe above 

 

A) Likelihood the industry uses money/political influence to slow the transition

~95% likely (range 90–99%).

Reason: lobbying and policy influence are normal, documented corporate behavior; and in this case we also have focused assessments of “obstructive” climate policy influence.

 

B) Likelihood the industry has engaged in organized misleading messaging about climate risks (public perception)

~85% likely (range 75–95%).

Reason: multiple independent lanes point in the same direction: peer-reviewed analyses of public messaging vs internal knowledge, investigative documentation of early knowledge, and congressional investigations into misleading narratives/pledges.

 

C) Likelihood the industry has deliberately used disinformation (intentional falsehoods) rather than just “spin,” cherry-picking, or delay tactics

~70% likely (range 55–85%).

Reason: “disinformation” implies intent to deceive. There’s significant support for intent in parts of the historical record and in documentary compilations, but intent varies by company, era, and channel (trade associations vs corporate comms vs third-party cutouts). The evidence is strongest when you can point to internal documents, memos, strategy plans, or coordinated campaigns rather than just misleading vibes.

 

D) Likelihood they’ve tried to affect perceived timeframes and severity (“not urgent,” “uncertain,” “future problem,” “we’ll fix it with tech later”)

~80% likely (range 65–90%).

Reason: this is the classic delay playbook: uncertainty amplification, “energy poverty” framing, exaggerated faith in future tech, and shifting responsibility onto individuals. Those patterns show up across academic analysis, congressional materials, and influence/lobbying reports.

 

A couple of sound counterpoints (because reality is allergic to simple villains)

• • Not all fossil fuel companies behave identically. The “industry” includes majors, independents, national oil companies, service firms, and trade associations. The strongest evidence of “organized disinformation” tends to cluster around major firms and trade groups, as well as specific eras/campaigns.

  • Some delays are “incentives, not conspiracies.” Even without a smoke-filled room, any sector facing an existential policy change will naturally fund messaging and lobbying to protect profits. That still distorts public understanding; it just doesn’t require omniscient coordination.

Other credible evidence that the fossil fuel industry has done what is discussed above

Here’s the “credible evidence” spine that doesn’t depend on trusting any one advocacy outlet:

1) Peer-reviewed work showing misleading public communications

A major thread of research compares internal/expert knowledge vs public messaging. For example, Supran & Oreskes’ work (and related addenda/analyses) presents document-based analyses of Exxon/ExxonMobil communications and concludes the company misled the public in multiple ways, including through “advertorial”-style messaging.

Also, related peer-reviewed work shows Exxon’s internal climate projections were often accurate (the issue being what was said publicly vs what was known internally).

2) Investigative documentation of early internal knowledge

Investigative reporting (later used and cited in official contexts) documents that Exxon’s internal research recognized the climate risks and the implication that addressing warming would require major reductions in fossil fuel combustion.

3) Congressional investigations and official reports

US congressional activity explicitly frames this as an industry-wide disinformation/greenwashing/delay problem, including document requests, subpoenas, and committee materials describing coordinated efforts through companies and trade associations.

4) Documented lobbying and “obstructive climate influence” spending

InfluenceMap (which focuses on corporate policy influence) estimates that major oil & gas firms and associations spend large sums annually on what it classifies as obstructive climate-influencing activities.

5) NGO documentary compilations (useful when they link primary docs)

The Union of Concerned Scientists compiles and cites primary materials (memos, testimony, reports) that argue a long-running pattern of deception/delay and highlight documents like the American Petroleum Institute “Roadmap” memo language emphasizing uncertainty.

6. DeSmog is essentially an investigative archive: it maintains a Climate Disinformation Database profiling organizations and people it says helped delay or distract climate action. DeSmog’s reporting often focuses on fossil-fuel companies and trade groups (like API), allied think tanks, PR strategies, advertising, and political influence pathways, and it frequently ties those to specific campaigns or policy fights.

DeSmog itself isn’t a “primary source” in the scientific sense, but it is a curation and reporting layer that often points to primary documents, hearings, leaked materials, ad archives, and academic research

 

Please donate any amount to help keep our 100% publicly funded nonprofit think tank accessible to everyone. Please help us continue to provide the public with uncensored climate change forecasts, facts, and solutions.

With every donation of any amount, you will get amazing gifts! Click the donate image below to see what these gifts are.

 

Receive Our Free Climate Change & Runaway Global Heating Alerts and Updates!

 

 

 

 

Job One for Humanity published this article. Job One is a nonprofit climate change think tank and risk assessment organization founded in 2008. It is independent, 100% publicly funded, and uncensored by any government or corporation.