Right-wing media have repeatedly cited the impacts of El Niño, short-term weather variability, and quieter stretches of hurricane season to argue that storm risks from climate change are exaggerated, and now the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s “below-normal” 2026 Atlantic hurricane forecast gives that playbook a new opening.

NOAA cites the development of El Niño as one factor likely to reduce storm formation in the Atlantic basin, which is a forecast about expected basin-wide activity, not a verdict on the risks posed by any storms that do form. Yet climate skeptics are already treating the prediction as an argument against connecting storms to climate change, pushing climate context out of hurricane coverage even before the season unfolds. 

Corporate media outlets can reproduce the same narrow coverage without adopting the right’s rhetoric if they report the outlook as a quiet-season story and stop there. Instead, strong forecast coverage should make it clear that NOAA’s storm-count ranges estimate how active the Atlantic basin might be — not how dangerous the season will be for people in harm’s way. A season with few storms can still produce rapidly intensifying hurricanes, catastrophic rainfall, uninsured losses, and breakdowns in disaster response.

Right-wing media have used quieter hurricane forecasts to portray climate risk as exaggerated

Climate skeptics and right-wing outlets have repeatedly used natural weather variability, storm-frequency predictions, and lower-than-expected hurricane activity to argue that climate warnings and media coverage are exaggerated or unreliable. That move is already visible in response to NOAA’s below-normal 2026 Atlantic hurricane forecast. 

The Heartland Institute, which has long promoted climate skepticism, cited the new forecast and then argued that “whether it is a devastating season or a mild one, climate change has nothing to do with it,” while warning readers not to believe media coverage or attribution studies linking hurricanes to climate change. In a May 29 newsletter, Heartland claimed that it’s “as certain as death and taxes” that “at one point or another during the hurricane season some media outlet, mainstream or social media only, will claim one or more hurricanes were caused by or made more likely by climate change,” adding, “That last claim is patently false.”

CBN News, an evangelical Christian broadcast network, similarly used NOAA’s confirmation of El Niño to frame the event as potentially “good news.” The outlet cited WeatherBELL’s Joe Bastardi, who has frequently appeared on Fox News and spread hurricane misinformation, to argue that a powerful El Niño could minimize Atlantic hurricanes while warning against “climate alarmism.”

A similar move occurred during the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season, when Daily Wire hosts Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro falsely suggested there had been “no hurricanes” or “really nothing” as Hurricane Francine approached the Gulf Coast, even though Hurricane Beryl and Hurricane Debby had already caused real harm and peak season was still underway. Just weeks later, Hurricane Helene became one of the deadliest U.S. storms of the century.

El Niño can reduce Atlantic hurricane activity by increasing vertical wind shear, sinking motion, and atmospheric stability. However, that does not eliminate the climate conditions that can make storms more damaging when they do form, including warmer oceans, heavier rainfall, higher storm surge, and more coastal flooding. 

For 2026 coverage, the risk is that right-wing media and climate skeptics can use a quieter Atlantic outlook or any quiet stretch during the season to argue that journalists and experts are exaggerating the threat, scientists are overstating the climate connection, and officials are overreacting before their audiences have seen what the season actually produces.

Broadcast and cable news should not help right-wing media turn the NOAA hurricane forecast into a storm-count story

Broadcast and cable news networks covering NOAA’s outlook for this year’s Atlantic hurricane season are unlikely to adopt climate denial talking points outright. But forecast coverage can still reproduce a softer version of the same misinformation if it treats the number of expected storms as a proxy for public danger, leaving audiences with the impression that fewer expected storms means less risk.

Before the season produces a major storm, the forecast may become the main public reference point for hurricane risk. If coverage treats it mainly as a quiet-season story, it can make risk look smaller before any storm has tested evacuation systems, flood protections, insurance coverage, or emergency response. It can also give right-wing media an easier opening to argue that warnings, preparedness messaging, and climate context are alarmist.

During quiet stretches, outlets should not treat a lull as confirmation that the below-normal forecast made warnings or climate context unnecessary. A quiet stretch does not show whether the next storm will intensify quickly, produce dangerous flooding, or expose gaps in local preparedness.

When storms form, coverage should move beyond track and landfall projections. Those forecasts are essential, but they do not explain the full public risk. Viewers also need context about rapid intensification, rainfall, storm surge, evacuation access, infrastructure vulnerability, and the communities most likely to face barriers before, during, and after the storm.

After landfall, coverage should examine whether preparedness, insurance, and disaster-response systems protected the communities in harm’s way. Climate disasters are not only weather events — they are also tests of public systems that shape who is exposed, who can leave, who gets help, and who is left to recover with the least support.