By Daniel Brouse
Over the past several years, we’ve trained our AI agents on our own climate research to explore new ways of communicating complex scientific concepts. As a result, some of our content reflects the depth of graduate-level research while presenting it in a more accessible visual format. We’ve intentionally experimented with different styles for audiences with varying scientific backgrounds, and somewhat to our surprise, the AI-assisted graphics and visual explanations have consistently generated the highest levels of engagement. That experience has led us to an important conclusion about the role of AI in science communication:
AI-generated images, videos, and memes are already being used at scale to spread misinformation—not just by climate denialists, but also by groups promoting authoritarian and ecofascist narratives. Waiting on the sidelines doesn’t prevent that; it simply cedes the space to those who are willing to misuse the technology.
The question isn’t whether AI should be used. It’s how it’s used.
Our goal is to communicate evidence-based science more effectively. Every graphic we publish is supported by the underlying research, data, and references. The visuals aren’t a substitute for the science—they’re a gateway to it.
Scientists have often been early adopters of new tools, from computer modeling and satellite remote sensing to data visualization and machine learning. I think AI is another step in that progression. If these technologies help people understand nonlinear systems, feedback loops, and complex climate risks, then scientists should be leading by example—demonstrating how they can be used responsibly, transparently, and in service of evidence rather than propaganda.
Ultimately, if a communication tool helps more people understand the science accurately, I think we have an obligation to explore it, especially when misinformation campaigns are already doing the opposite.
