Science and Environmental Communication on YouTube: Strategically Distorted Communications in Online Videos on Climate Change and Climate Engineering

The online video-sharing website YouTube is extremely popular globally, also as a tool for information on science and environmental topics. However, only little is known about what kind of information users find when they are searching for information about climate science, climate change and climate engineering on YouTube. This contribution presents results from an exploratory research project that investigates whether videos found on YouTube adhere to or challenge scientific consensus views. Ten search terms were employed to search for and analyze 200 videos about climate and climate modification topics, which are contested topics in online media. The online anonymization tool Tor has been used for the randomization of the sample and to avoid personalization of the results. A heuristic qualitative classification tool was set up to categorize the videos in the sample. 89 videos of the 200 videos in the sample are supporting scientific consensus views about anthropogenic climate change, and climate scientists are discussing climate topics with deniers of climate change in 4 videos in the sample. Unexpectedly, the majority of the videos in the sample (107 videos) supports worldviews that are opposing scientific consensus views: 16 videos deny climate change and 91 videos in the sample propagate straightforward conspiracy theories about climate engineering and climate change. Videos supporting the scientific mainstream view received only slightly more views (16,941,949 views in total) than those opposing the mainstream scientific position (16,939,655 views in total). Consequences for the public communication of climate change and climate engineering are discussed in the second part of the article. The research presented in this contribution is particularly interested in finding out more about strategically distorted communications about climate change and climate engineering in online environments and in critically analyzing them.

[1]  Karin van Es,et al.  YouTube’s Operational Logic: “The View” as Pervasive Category: , 2020 .

[2]  Joachim Allgaier.  Science and Medicine on YouTube , 2019, Second International Handbook of Internet Research.

[3]  Heather J Doucette,et al.  YouTube videos as health decision aids for the public: An integrative review. , 2019, Canadian journal of dental hygiene : CJDH = Journal canadien de l'hygiene dentaire : JCHD.

[4]  James Gerard Breiner.  Communicating science and technology through online video: researching a new media phenomenon , 2019 .

[5]  W. Pearce,et al.  The social media life of climate change: Platforms, publics, and future imaginaries , 2018, WIREs Climate Change.

[6]  M. Michael.  Destroying iPhones: Feral science and the antithetical citizen , 2018, Public understanding of science.

[7]  M. Erviti,et al.  When Science Becomes Controversial , 2018 .

[8]  Bienvenido León,et al.  Communicating Science and Technology Through Online Video: Researching a New Media Phenomenon , 2018 .

[9]  Ariadna Matamoros-Fernández,et al.  From ranking algorithms to ‘ranking cultures’ , 2018 .

[10]  D. Barben,et al.  Verantwortungsvoll das Klima manipulieren? Unsicherheit und Verantwortung im Diskurs um Climate Engineering , 2018 .

[11]  Gernot Wagner,et al.  Solar geoengineering and the chemtrails conspiracy on social media , 2017, Palgrave Communications.

[12]  J. García-Avilés,et al.  Online video on climate change: a comparison between television and web formats , 2017 .

[13]  Guido Caldarelli,et al.  Debunking in a world of tribes , 2015, PloS one.

[14]  Erik. Stengler,et al.  Online science videos: an exploratory study with major professional content providers in the United Kingdom , 2016 .

[15]  Lars Guenther,et al.  Science communication and the issue of trust , 2016 .

[16]  Raffael Himmelsbach.  Experiment earth: responsible innovation in geoengineering , 2016 .

[17]  S. Davis,et al.  Quantifying expert consensus against the existence of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program , 2016 .

[18]  Dustin J. Welbourne,et al.  Science communication on YouTube: Factors that affect channel and video popularity , 2016, Public understanding of science.

[19]  Antonis Kalogeropoulos,et al.  The Future of Online News Video , 2016 .

[20]  Jeffrey A. Gottfried,et al.  News use across social media platforms 2016 , 2016 .

[21]  N. Oreskes,et al.  Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming , 2016 .

[22]  Guido Caldarelli,et al.  Users Polarization on Facebook and Youtube , 2016, PloS one.

[23]  R. Cairns.  Climates of suspicion: ‘chemtrail’ conspiracy narratives and the international politics of geoengineering , 2016 .

[24]  Adam Fish.  FCJ-191 Mirroring the Videos of Anonymous: Cloud Activism, Living Networks, and Political Mimesis. , 2016 .

[25]  Mike S. Schäfer,et al.  Something old, something new: Digital media and the coverage of climate Change , 2016 .

[26]  Leona Yi-Fan Su,et al.  YouTube, Social Norms and Perceived Salience of Climate Change in the American Mind , 2017 .

[27]  Anna Lydia Svalastog,et al.  The communication aspects of the Ebola virus disease outbreak in Western Africa – do we need to counter one, two, or many epidemics? , 2015, Croatian medical journal.

[28]  Karl Hepfer.  Verschwörungstheorien: Eine philosophische Kritik der Unvernunft , 2015 .

[29]  Kelly V. Ruggles,et al.  Coverage of the Ebola Virus Disease Epidemic on YouTube , 2015, Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness.

[30]  Jesús Muñoz Morcillo,et al.  Typologies of the Popular Science Web Video , 2015, ArXiv.

[31]  Nilay Kumar,et al.  Greater freedom of speech on Web 2.0 correlates with dominance of views linking vaccines to autism. , 2015, Vaccine.

[32]  Matthew A. Shapiro,et al.  More than entertainment: YouTube and public responses to the science of global warming and climate change , 2015 .

[33]  Jack Stilgoe,et al.  Experiment Earth: Responsible Innovation In Geoengineering , 2015 .

[34]  Christian Strippel,et al.  Stichprobenziehung für Online-Inhaltsanalysen: Suchmaschinen und Filter Bubbles , 2015 .

[35]  Brigitte Nerlich,et al.  Fracking on YouTube: Exploring Risks, Benefits and Human Values , 2014 .

[36]  P. Soukup.  Looking at, with, and through YouTube[TM] , 2014 .

[37]  Mike S. Schäfer,et al.  Media Representations of Climate Change: A Meta-Analysis of the Research Field , 2014 .

[38]  Dominique Brossard,et al.  The "Nasty Effect: " Online Incivility and Risk Perceptions of Emerging Technologies , 2014, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[39]  R. König.  „Google WTC-7“ – Zur ambivalenten Position von marginalisiertem Wissen im Internet , 2014 .

[40]  David W. Keith,et al.  A Case for Climate Engineering , 2013 .

[41]  D. Brossard.  New media landscapes and the science information consumer , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[42]  Julie Uldam,et al.  Online Civic Cultures: Debating Climate Change Activism on YouTube , 2013 .

[43]  Joachim Allgaier.  On the Shoulders of YouTube , 2013 .

[44]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  Science, New Media, and the Public , 2013, Science.

[45]  Mike S. Schäfer.  Online communication on climate change and climate politics: a literature review , 2012 .

[46]  A. Leshner.  Capably Communicating Science , 2012, Science.

[47]  Alice E. Marwick.  Reading YouTube: The Critical Viewer’s Guide , 2012, New Media Soc..

[48]  J. Hartley.  Digital Futures for Cultural and Media Studies , 2011 .

[49]  Richard Holliman,et al.  Advocacy in the tail: Exploring the implications of ‘climategate’ for science journalism and public debate in the digital age , 2011 .

[50]  Julie Uldam,et al.  Online social media for radical politics: climate change activism on YouTube , 2011 .

[51]  Eli Pariser,et al.  The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You , 2011 .

[52]  Gareth Davies,et al.  Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty , 2010 .

[53]  N. Oreskes,et al.  Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming , 2010 .

[54]  Brian Harmer,et al.  YouTube: Online Video and Participatory Culture , 2010 .

[55]  J. Bleicher.  Pelle Snickars / Patrick Vonderau (Hrsg.) (2009): The YouTube Reader. Stockholm: National Library of Sweden , 2010 .

[56]  J. A. Palyvos,et al.  3D visualization types in multimedia applications for science learning: A case study for 8th grade students in Greece , 2009, Comput. Educ..

[57]  Robert W. Gehl,et al.  YouTube as archive , 2009 .

[58]  Melanie Birks,et al.  Memoing in qualitative research , 2008 .

[59]  M. Boykoff,et al.  Media Coverage of Climate Change: Current Trends, Strengths, Weaknesses , 2007 .

[60]  H. Nowotny.  Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge , 2003 .

[61]  J. Overhage,et al.  Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences , 2001, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[62]  R. Kravitz,et al.  Health information on the Internet: accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. , 2001, JAMA.

[63]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39 , 1989 .

[64]  L. Korzeniowski.  [On autism]. , 1967, Annales medico-psychologiques.