Citizens can play an important role in disseminating scientific information about climate change, if motivated to do so. However, expressing green positions has the potential to negatively affect people's reputation, by making them look judgmental for instance. In three experiments among US and UK participants (N = 1197) we investigate the reputational costs of sharing statements about climate change that vary in accuracy and in potential impact. In Experiment 1, we show that participants judge more negatively someone sharing a bleak (but arguably more accurate) statement about climate change (e.g., calling it "climate breakdown"), compared to a control statement. Experiment 2 replicates this finding with control statements (e.g. "The richest 1% in the world is responsible for most of the greenhouse gas emissions") compared to accusatorial statements (adding "because most citizens in countries like the United States consume too much energy"). Experiment 3 shows that participants are less willing to share more accusatorial statements-even though they are thought to exert a greater effect on their audience. Our results further show that the fear of appearing judgmental and unfriendly might make people less likely to share bleaker or more accusatorial-even if more accurate or potentially effective-statements about climate change.