YouTube’s tremendous reach - and control over the content on its site - is unprecedented in media history. People around the globe spend² a billion hours on YouTube every day, and the platform has two billion monthly active users, ³ which is more than all the households with TVs⁴ in the entire world. Even more significant when it comes to audience influence, YouTube is able to reach more 18-34 year olds than any cable network in the United States. ⁵ Today, YouTube is the preferred platform for teenagers, according to a recent study⁶ conducted by the Pew Research Center in the US, with 85% of teenagers (ages 13–17) saying they use the platform.

In 2015, YouTube launched a campaign⁷ to “help change the way people discuss climate change, so that the issue and its consequences could become more relevant and tangible to people around the world.” In addition, in Google’s February 2019 Whitepaper on fighting disinformation, YouTube’s parent company made it clear that: “We set out to prevent our systems from serving up content that could misinform users in a harmful way, particularly in domains that rely on veracity, such as science, medicine, news, or historical events. To that end, we introduced a higher bar for videos that are promoted through the YouTube homepage or that are surfaced to users through the “watch next” recommendations. Just because content is available on the site, it does not mean that it will display as prominently throughout the recommendation engine."⁸

With this report Avaaz set out to analyse how effectively YouTube is protecting its users from climate misinformation, and how well it’s implementing the commitments it made last February specifically around its recommendation engine.

For this investigation, Avaaz examined the videos YouTube recommends to users when they search “global warming,” “climate change,” or “climate manipulation.” Specifically, we focused on the videos YouTube suggests to users in its ‘Up Next’ feature, below the video on the mobile app, and as the next video in autoplay. These YouTube promoted videos drive the vast majority⁹ of what users watch on the site.

We found that YouTube is driving millions of people to watch climate misinformation videos. These climate misinformation videos aren’t just being uploaded to YouTube and organically seen by interested audiences. Instead, YouTube’s recommendation algorithm is giving these videos free promotion and showing misinformation to millions who wouldn’t have been exposed to it otherwise.

Secondly, Avaaz found that YouTube is incentivizing this climate misinformation content via its monetization program. Every time an ad is shown on a YouTube video, the advertiser pays a fee,¹⁰ of which 55% goes to the video creator and the other 45% to YouTube.

Avaaz found that some of the largest household brands in the world, including Samsung, L’Oréal, Warner Bros, Carrefour, and Danone as well as two of the largest environmental groups in the world, Greenpeace International and World Wildlife Fund, have advertisements running on these climate misinformation videos.

²http://archive.fo/Dkygo
³http://archive.fo/BwINe
⁴http://archive.fo/g6Hrl
⁵http://archive.fo/D0hOY
⁶http://archive.fo/ZNnVh
⁷http://archive.fo/cNzAW
⁸https://kstatic.googleusercontent.com/... see page 20.
⁹“YouTube's product chief says for 70 percent of the time you watch, you're riding a chain of recommendations driven by artificial intelligence.” https://www.cnet.com/news/youtube-ces-2018-neal-mohan/
¹⁰http://archive.is/ZgoxE
¹¹For further details on how Avaaz came to these findings, see the Annex.
¹²See the Annex of this report for further details on how Avaaz defines “Related” and “Recommended” videos.

• YouTube is actively promoting climate misinformation to millions of users:
• For the search term “global warming, ”16% of the top 100 related videos included under the up-next feature¹² had disinformation about climate change .
• For the related videos recommendedto users who searched “climate change” this number equals 8% and rises to 21% for the search term “climate manipulation.”
• The climate misinformation videos Avaaz reviewed had 21.1 million views collectively.
• This is just the tip of the iceberg: Assuming a similar ratio for the thousands of other videos recommended through these and similar search terms, the total views on climate misinformation on YouTube likely add up to hundreds of millions .
• Ads for some of the world’s most trusted brands were found on climate misinformation videos:
• Avaaz was able to identify 108 brands running ads on these climate misinformation videos , including household names like Samsung, L’Oréal, Decathlon, Danone, Warner Bros and Carrefour.
• One in five ads found were from green or ethical brands including Greenpeace International, WWF and Save the Children.
• Greenpeace International, WWF, L’Oreal, Samsung, Danone, Decathlon, Carrefour, Ecosia, Nikin and Save the Children have confirmed that they were unaware that their ads were accompanying these videos and funding their creators.

The videos found and analysed in this report cover a broad range of misinformation themes, from videos titled “ACTUAL SCIENTIST: Climate Change is a Hoax” and “CIA Whistleblower Speaks Out About Climate Engineering Vaccination Dangers and 911” ¹³ to claims that there is no evidence that CO₂ emissions are the dominant factor in climate change.

Avaaz has classified videos as “climate denial and misinformation” if they contained verifiably false or misleading information that has the potential to cause public harm, such as undermining public support for efforts to limit human-induced climate change, as assessed against the scientific consensus represented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, NASA, NOAA and other peer-reviewed scientific literature.

In recent years, YouTube has been repeatedly criticized for promoting conspiracy theories and pushing misinformation, and the company has introduced important reforms in response. In January 2019, YouTube pledged¹⁴ “to limit recommendations of borderline content and harmful misinformation, such as videos promoting a phony miracle cure for a serious illness, or claiming the earth is flat.” In addition, in some countries, including the US, UK, Spain, Germany, South Korea¹⁵ and India¹⁶, YouTube is displaying information panels¹⁷ when people search for topics that are “prone to misinformation” — these consist of boxes of text that provide topical context from YouTube’s third party partners like Wikipedia.

Sixty-four percent of the climate misinformation videos Avaaz analyzed for this report were found to have an information panel from Wikipedia, containing general information about global warming. However, there was no flag to users that these videos contained misinformation and they were still being suggested by YouTube.

In order to effectively protect societies from this harmful misinformation, YouTube must take a more systemic approach. After consultation with industry experts, advertisers and legislators around the world,

Avaaz recommends that YouTube:

• Detox the YouTube Algorithm -- The company must end its free promotion of misinformation and disinformation videos by extracting such videos from its algorithms, starting immediately by including climate misinformation in its borderline content policy.
• Demonetize Disinformation -- Add disinformation and misinformation to YouTube’s relevant monetization policies, ensuring such content does not include advertising and is not financially incentivized. YouTube should start immediately with the option for advertisers to exclude their ads from videos with climate misinformation.
• Correct the Record -- Work with independent fact-checkers to inform users who have seen or interacted with verifiably false or misleading information, and issue corrections alongside these videos.

Avaaz believes that YouTube has the opportunity to be a trailblazer in the fight against misinformation: the company is already committed to solving this problem and creating a better and safer information environment for its users. Now is the time for YouTube to act more systematically and more urgently to implement solutions, like the recommendations described above, to ensure this new decade is not plagued by the disinformation problems started in the last one.

Similarly, advertisers must both ensure that they follow through on their own corporate social responsibility commitments and track what kind of content their advertising revenue is inadvertently funding - and work with YouTube to be more transparent and socially responsible when it comes to where the platform places their brand names. Advertisers must establish detailed ethical ad placement requirements for platforms that include correcting the record and detoxing the algorithm. Avaaz commends the brands who have already begun this critical work.

¹³https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl5NW9KcMt0
¹⁴http://archive.fo/hP7vz
¹⁵https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9004474?hl=en
¹⁶http://archive.fo/8pPhn
¹⁷https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9004474?hl=en

Recommended videos are a key part of the YouTube user experience: According to¹⁸ the platform’s chief product officer, Neal Mohan, 70% of the time users spend on YouTube is driven by the platform’s recommendations. In order to keep viewers on the site longer, the YouTube algorithm makes personalized¹⁹ recommendations to the user either in the form of videos on the platform’s landing page, as the “up next” video played after the video, or in the sidebar. These recommendations are meant to help viewers find content they might want to watch among millions of videos available on the site. However, there have been harmful unintended consequences to this model. For instance, for every climate misinformation video someone watches or likes, similar content is likely to show up in that person’s recommendations, thereby trapping the viewer in an online bubble of misinformation.²⁰

For our investigation, Avaaz conducted a series of YouTube searches in English on three climate topics, collected the top results and queried YouTube APIs asking for the top related videos from these search results. In the end, we gathered a total of 5,537 videos. Avaaz focused on the following three search terms: “global warming,” “climate change” and “climate manipulation.” We chose the two neutral search terms (“global warming” and “climate change”) to analyse what type of videos would be recommended to an average YouTube user interested in the issue as well as “climate manipulation” as a more charged search term, which refers to the conspiracy theory that powerful corporations and governments are controlling the climate.Our full methodology is explained in the Annex.

The results of our investigation are clear: YouTube is promoting misinformation about climate change to millions. Sixteen percent of the top 100 videos detected by the YouTube API to be highly related to the initial video results for the search term “global warming” had misinformation about climate change. These related videos play a significant role in what winds up being recommended by YouTube in its “Up Next” feature and suggestions bar. For related videos based on the search term “climate change” this number equals 8% and rises to 21% for the search term “climate manipulation”. In total, the climate misinformation videos Avaaz found for this investigation had 21.1 million views.

By focusing its recommendation algorithm on views and time spent on videos, YouTube has opened the door to promoting content whether it is misinformation or not as long as people keep watching. Our research also shows that this may have had an impact on virality and engagement: Over 20% of the views for the top 100 related videos for the search term “global warming” were on climate misinformation videos. For videos recommended based on the search term “climate change” this number equals 17% and rises to 27% for the search term “climate manipulation.”

¹⁸http://archive.fo/KrHyo
¹⁹http://archive.fo/KfqVO
²⁰http://archive.ph/1YUJa

Avaaz found ads from a significant number of the world’s most widely recognized and trusted household brands and environmental companies and NGOs running on the climate misinformation videos we analysed for this report.

For Avaaz’s investigation into which brands had ads on climate misinformation videos, our research team focused in on the top 10 most viewed misinformation videos for the “global warming” search term, and the top 5 most viewed misinformation videos for the “climate change” and “climate manipulation” search terms respectively. Our intent was not to do a comprehensive examination but to get an overview of which ads tended to appear on the most trending videos recommended by YouTube.²¹

In total, Avaaz was able to identify 108 brands running ads on these climate misinformation videos. One in five of the ads shown were from green or ethical brands as well as public entities, such as Greenpeace International, WWF, Ecosia, Save the Children, the German Interior Ministry, and Eureciclo. Avaaz also found that 12.5% of the ads on the monetized videos were from household brands. In just two days of research and 10 viewings per video in six countries, some brands such as Aeromexico, Uber, Samsung, Decathlon, L’Oreal and Harley Davidson appeared over five times, sometimes over 10 times. For a full list of the brands and advertisements found by Avaaz during this investigation, see Annex 4.

It is crucial to understand that these ads are actually helping to financially incentivize the creation of climate misinformation content. Every time an ad is shown on a YouTube video, the advertiser pays a fee²², of which 55% goes to the video creator and the other 45% to YouTube.

Avaaz reached out to several of the companies and NGOs whose advertisements were found on climate misinformation videos. As of publication of this report, Greenpeace International, WWF, L’Oreal, Samsung, Danone, Decathlon, Carrefour, Nikin, Ecosia and Save the Children have confirmed that they were unaware that their ads were accompanying these climate misinformation videos.

²¹ For our full methodology, please refer to the Annex of this report.
²²http://archive.is/ZgoxE

Several audience and content targeting methods²³ for video ads are available to advertisers on YouTube, such as targeting based on demographic groups, interests, placements on YouTube channels or videos, topics, keywords, etc. One option for advertisers is automatic placement²⁴ of their ads. Alternatively, advertisers can choose to have managed placement²⁵ for ads, which is a targeting method advertisers can use to specifically choose websites, videos and apps that are part of the Google Display Network. Unlike the automatic placements, advertisers select managed placement themselves. YouTube provides content exclusion settings²⁶ that let advertisers opt out of showing their ads alongside certain categories of websites, videos and mobile apps that may not be appropriate for their brand or serve their advertising goals. Such categories include sensitive social issues, tragedy and conflict, sexually suggestive content, and sensational and shocking content. All content creators who are part of YouTube’s monetization program -- meaning they have ads running on their videos that they earn money for -- must comply with advertiser-friendly content²⁷ guidelines, otherwise advertising will be disabled on their videos. In reviewing YouTube’s relevant monetization policies, however, Avaaz was not able to find any direct mention of misinformation as a criteria for content where advertising is banned or disabled.

²³http://archive.fo/OFSxm
²⁴http://archive.fo/wlbcR
²⁵http://archive.fo/9PPPA
²⁶http://archive.fo/sBJ14
²⁷http://archive.fo/65wJi

Below are a few examples of the monetized climate misinformation videos found by Avaaz as well as the advertisements that accompany them. Avaaz researchers reviewed some of the main claims made by each of these videos. Our team was easily able to find evidence confirming that these claims were verifiably false or misleading (ie misinformation) as assessed against the scientific consensus represented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, NASA, NOAA and other peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Note: In some countries, YouTube promotes a Wikipedia article on global warming under some of the videos we found in this investigation, which is part of YouTube’s current effort to fight climate misinformation.²⁸ However, YouTube does not give users an indication that the video itself contains misinformation. And, as this research shows, these videos are still promoted by YouTube’s algorithm.

²⁸https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zahrahirji/youtube-climate-change-denial

This video was uploaded on the PragerU channel, which has 2.31 million subscribers and claims to promote “Judeo-Christian values.” It is curated by the conservative³⁰ talk-radio host Dennis Prager. At the time of Avaaz’s research in August, the video had been viewed over 2.6 million times since it was first published on July 27, 2015. Since August it has already racked up nearly an additional 1 million views.³¹ There are many claims in Moore’s videos. Here are a few of the main claims found to be verifiably false or misleading by Avaaz:

• There has been no significant warming trend in the 21st century.
• Temperatures and carbon dioxide levels do not show a strong correlation.
• Patrick Moore is a co-founder of Greenpeace.

NASA Earth Observatory³² has confirmed that: “The world is getting warmer. Whether the cause is human activity or natural variability—and the preponderance of evidence says it’s humans— thermometer readings all around the world have risen steadily since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution...According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade... The line plot below shows yearly temperature anomalies from 1880 to 2014 as recorded by NASA, NOAA, the Japan Meteorological Agency, and the Met Office Hadley Centre (United Kingdom). Though there are minor variations from year to year, all four records show peaks and valleys in sync with each other. All show rapid warming in the past few decades, and all show the last decade as the warmest.” ³³

²⁹http://archive.ph/fzK1T
³⁰http://archive.ph/uUVxC
³¹As of December 12, 2019
³²http://archive.ph/JktDU
³³https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-ofchange/DecadalTemp

The scientific community agrees that there are many factors that play into climate change, but Moore ignores the mountain of peer reviewed studies showing that changes in CO₂ levels is the cause of past cooling and warming periods.

For example, The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) concludes: "One of the most remarkable aspects of the paleoclimate record is the strong correspondence between temperature and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere observed during the glacial cycles of the past several hundred thousand years. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes up, temperature goes up. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes down, temperature goes down." ³³, ³⁴

In a caption in this video it says Patrick Moore is a co-founder of Greenpeace; however, Greenpeace has denied this, saying that “although Mr Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace.”³⁵ In the past, Moore has been criticized³⁶ for his alleged relations with the nuclear, timber and plastics industries and lobbies.

³⁴https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/temperature-change
³⁵ Further sources: Jouzel, J. et al. Orbital and Millennial Antarctic Climate Variability over the Past 800,000 Years. Science 317, 793–797 (2007); Luthi, D. et al. High-resolution carbon dioxide concentration record 650,000–800,000 years before present. Nature 453, 379–382, 10.1038/nature06949 (2008); Luthi, D. et al. EPICA Dome C Ice Core 800KYr Carbon Dioxide Data. IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series # 2008-055. NOAA/ NCDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA (2008); Lacis, A. A., Schmidt, G. A., Rind, R. & Ruedy, R. A. Atmospheric CO₂: Principal Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature. Science 330, 356–359 (2010); Came, R., Eiler, J., Veizer, J. et al. Coupling of surface temperatures and atmospheric CO₂ concentrations during the Palaeozoic era. Nature 449, 198–201 (2007).
³⁶Greenpeace have stated that: "Although Mr Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace." Greenpeace has said: "Phil Cotes, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen founded Greenpeace in 1970." Mr Moore left Greenpeace in 1986 see: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-uscanada-47543905
³⁷http://archive.ph/g45aQ

This video, an excerpt of a much longer interview with Dr. Patrick Michaels, was published on the Fox News channel. At the time of Avaaz’s research in August, this video had been viewed over 2 million times since its publication on October 21, 2018. Since then, the video has racked up an additional 460,000 views.⁴⁵

There are many claims made by this video. Some of the core claims that Avaaz found to be misinformation include:

• 31 of 32 climate models are flawed by design to vastly over-predict warming
• Only half of global warming might be caused by human activity, beginning in 1976

As the video says: “There are 32 families of computer models that are used by the United Nations, each government sponsored. And all of them are predicting far, far too much warming...[the 31 models] are what is called parameterized. They're all parameterized, can I translate parameterized into English? Fudged. They don't get the right answer, don't know the right answer for a certain phenomena, so we essentially put in code steps that give us what we think it should be. And the systematic error that was made was the models were tuned, yes, I said, tuned.”

According to the IPCC: “There is considerable confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. This confidence comes from the foundation of the models in accepted physical principles and from their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and past climate changes. Confidence in model estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation). Over several decades of development, models have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases.” ⁴⁶,⁴⁷

In addition, according to the fact-checking organisation Climate Feedback,⁴⁸ the claim that only half of global warming might be caused by human activity, beginning in 1976, is incorrect: “Human-caused warming did not begin in 1976, as Michaels claims. No evidence or research is provided to support this claim, which contradicts the published scientific literature. [...] Multiple factors— some human-caused and some natural—combine to influence global temperatures. However, human activities were already causing warming in the first half of the 20th century, and are responsible for approximately 100% of the more-rapid warming taking place after 1950. Thus, humans are responsible for most of the warming since 1900.” ⁴⁹

Dr. Michaels is currently a senior fellow in the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.⁵⁰ Michaels once estimated that “40 percent” of his funding comes from the oil industry in a CNN interview with Fareed Zakaria.⁵¹

⁴⁸Climate Feedback is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network at Poynter. “Climate Feedback is a non-partisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to science education. Our reviews are crowdsourced directly from a community of scientists with relevant expertise. We strive to explain whether and why information is or is not consistent with the science and to help readers know which news to trust.” See: https://climatefeedback.org/climate-feedback-accredited-by-theinternational-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-for-the-second-year/
⁴⁹https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/on-fox-news-patrick-michaelsfalsely-claims-humans-are-only-responsible-for-half-of-global-warming/. Climate Feedback noted: “This claim is being reviewed months after the interview first ran because it has recently been recirculated by blogs dismissive of climate science, and has been one of the most highly promoted videos by YouTube’s suggestion algorithm in recent weeks.”
⁵⁰https://web.archive.org/web/20190906135819/https://cei.org/content/patrick-j-michaels
⁵¹https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fguJod_voPc
⁵²In the timeframe of Avaaz’s research between September 18 and September 24.
⁵³The screenshot of the ad taken during this research has been altered for the sake of design. Copy of the originals are available upon request.
⁵⁴http://archive.fo/I9OFI
⁵⁵http://archive.fo/nG8i8
⁵⁶The screenshot of the ad taken during this research has been altered for the sake of design. Copy of the originals are available upon request.
⁵⁷http://sustainability.decathlon.com/action-areas/challenges-strategies/ climate-commitment/

⁵⁸The screenshot of the ad taken during this research has been altered for the sake of design. Copy of the originals are available upon request.
⁵⁹http://archive.fo/jGpI3
⁶⁰http://archive.fo/fY3Po
⁶¹The screenshot of the ad taken during this research has been altered for the sake of design. Copy of the originals are available upon request.
⁶²http://archive.fo/FWSMc

Richard Lindzen who is narrating this video is a former professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology⁶⁴ and a former senior fellow at the Cato Institute⁶⁵. At the time of Avaaz’s research⁶⁶ in August, the video, posted on April 18th, 2016, had been viewed over 1.9 million times.

There are many claims in this video. Some of the main claims that Avaaz found to be misinformation include:

• “There is no evidence that CO ₂ emissions are the dominant factor [in climate change].” [1:48]
• The IPCC acknowledged in its own 2007 report that: “the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
• Only since the 1960s have man’s greenhouse emissions been sufficient to play a role in raising global mean temperatures.

On the first point, the scientific consensus is that CO₂ is the main driver of climate change. This is borne out in the literature using direct measurement, historical data, and models.⁶⁷

On the second point, Lindzen has cherry picked a quote from the IPCC’s 2001 report⁶⁸ and incorrectly attributed it to the 2007 report. Read in context, the original 2001 quote is far from Lindzen’s meaning, and in the 2007 report the IPCC confirms that: “There is considerable confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above.” ⁶⁹

On the third point, this report already addressed a similar claim made by Patrick Michaels (see Video #2). In addition, the fifth IPCC report of 2014 stated: “It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.” ⁷⁰

⁶⁹Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, see p.600, FAQ 8.1 - https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ar4_wg1_ full_report-1.pdf
⁷⁰IPCC 5th Assessment Synthesis Report. https://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/topic_ observedchanges.php
⁷¹In the timeframe of Avaaz’ research between September 18th and September 24th
⁷²The screenshot of the ad taken during this research has been altered for the sake of design. Copy of the originals are available upon request.
⁷³Avaaz translation
⁷⁴The screenshot of the ad taken during this research has been altered for the sake of design. Copy of the originals are available upon request.
⁷⁵http://archive.fo/leRbu
⁷⁶https://www.etoro.com/copyportfolios/renewableenergy (not possible to archive, request was blocked by the security rules by eToro)

Released in 2007, “The Great Global Warming Swindle,” is a controversial film questioning the existence of a scientific consensus on global warming and the credibility of the IPCC. The video opens up with several different speakers all claiming that CO₂ is not responsible for global warming. At the time of Avaaz’s research, the video had been viewed 873,934 times on YouTube since it was first posted there on August 19, 2018. Since then, it has racked up an additional 100,000 views.⁷⁸

Most of the core claims in this video were debunked immediately after it was aired by George Monbiot for The Guardian.⁷⁹ One of the video’s primary points, which Avaaz found to be misinformation, is that the current increase in global temperatures is caused by changes in the activity of the sun not by rising greenhouse gases. Much of the content in the video is built around the writing of Danish atmospheric physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen whose reports on this matter have been disproved, including by a well known peer-reviewed article published by Stanford University.⁸⁰

The IPCC report from 2007,⁸¹ which was released one month before this video, stated that: “Human-induced warming of the climate system is widespread. (...) Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years." ⁸² The summary for policymakers of that same report also stated: “Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years.”⁸³

⁸⁸The screenshot of this ad taken during this research has been altered for the sake of design. Copies of the originals are available upon request.
⁸⁹http://archive.fo/JCM0N
⁹⁰The screenshot of the ad taken during this research has been altered for the sake of design. Copy of the originals are available upon request.
⁹¹http://archive.fo/wX1wZ
⁹²http://archive.fo/wX1wZ

ANNEX 2:
Methodology for Part II:

Climate Misinformation Videos on YouTube & the Global Brands Advertising on Them

Between September 18 and September 24, Avaaz set out to investigate which ads from which brands or campaigns were appearing on the climate change misinformation videos we identified.

We reviewed which ads were being shown on the top 10 recommended videos for the search term “global warming” and the top 5 most viewed videos for each of the other two search terms. To do this, the Avaaz team used a VPN connection for a specific country (in order to have a representative sample in key global countries, we selected Spain, the US, the UK, Germany, France, and Brazil), and used the Google Chrome browser in incognito mode to look for the videos based on their title or identification code.¹¹⁸ Each search was run five consecutive times, every time in a new incognito window.

¹¹⁸ All YouTube videos have a unique identification code.

Since its establishment over a decade ago, Avaaz has played a leading role in the struggle to ensure that the international community acts effectively to stop climate change. Consequently, Avaaz is deeply cognizant of the different predictive models used by the scientific community to assess the level of confidence associated with each key finding as reported using the IPCC’s calibrated language, based on the assessment of the available scientific, technical and socio-economic literature.

As with any scientific methodology based on probability, Avaaz understands that different models can be used, and different basic assumptions can be made, which impacts both the threat and timeframe assessments of how climate change will play out over the next decades and how cuts in greenhouse gas emissions will directly or indirectly limit global warming.

Avaaz has also been a vocal defender of the right to freedom of speech for years, and supports robust debates on this front. We believe that such debates are pivotal in a thriving democracy. One of the key objectives of this report is to allow for factbased deliberation, discussion and debate to flourish in an information ecosystem that is healthy and fair, and that allows both citizens and policymakers to make decisions based on the best available data.

In this report, Avaaz has sought to ensure that what we termed climate denial and misinformation is content that is outside of scientific boundaries, which can be readily confirmed by available authoritative literature.

Avaaz’s support for freedom of expression means that we believe verifiably false or misleading content should be countered and debunked, but not deleted. It is for this reason that Avaaz’s recommended solutions to platforms do not require them to remove false or misleading content, but for them to ensure that such content is not artificially amplified to millions of people and that those who have seen it are shown fact-checked corrections.

We see a clear boundary between freedom of speech and freedom of reach, and the curation and recommendation model currently adopted by most social media platforms is designed to maximise human attention and profit, not the fair and equal debate which is essential for humanity to rise to the great challenges of our time.