When individuals seek to learn about scientific information, they likely turn to the Internet. There, they will find multiple documents with conflicting points of view and varying degrees of accuracy. Integrating this information is challenging and may evoke epistemic emotions which may, in turn, influence how this information is integrated. Additionally, understanding complex scientific topics such as climate change requires causal reasoning. The current study investigated the role of emotions and prior knowledge in learning about the causes and effects of climate change from multiple texts. One hundred and twelve university students read either a congruent argument (two texts affirming the same point of view) or an incongruent argument (two texts with competing points of view). Text presentations were counterbalanced. Those who read congruent texts showed greater knowledge gains and were more likely to think causally than those in the incongruent group. Across all conditions, emotions tended to decrease in salience as participants read the second text, suggesting that individuals may become desensitized to the challenges of climate change with increased exposure to information. This suggests that caution must be taken to avoid promoting disengagement and inaction of individuals around controversial issues.