This study examines how digital news media disseminate disinformation about climate change, distinguishing between misinformation, which typically arises from unintentional errors, and disinformation, which is deliberately crafted to deceive. Findings indicate that the persistent coverage of contrarian sources, despite strong scientific consensus, is a deliberate strategy that negatively affects public understanding of climate change and undermines efforts to address it. This skeptical content, often disguised as objective coverage of sources and data interpretation, plays a role in constructing the ‘climate alarmism’ narrative, which frames climate policies as politically motivated rather than evidence-based. Additionally, disinformation is spread without relying on contrarian voices, particularly through opinion columns, where columnists propagate their own skeptical value judgments. This study calls for a reevaluation of journalistic standards and ethical practices to combat disinformation and foster a well-informed debate on climate change.