Discrepancy in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists and contrarians

We juxtapose 386 prominent contrarians with 386 expert scientists by tracking their digital footprints across ∼200,000 research publications and ∼100,000 English-language digital and print media articles on climate change. Projecting these individuals across the same backdrop facilitates quantifying disparities in media visibility and scientific authority, and identifying organization patterns within their association networks. Here we show via direct comparison that contrarians are featured in 49% more media articles than scientists. Yet when comparing visibility in mainstream media sources only, we observe just a 1% excess visibility, which objectively demonstrates the crowding out of professional mainstream sources by the proliferation of new media sources, many of which contribute to the production and consumption of climate change disinformation at scale. These results demonstrate why climate scientists should increasingly exert their authority in scientific and public discourse, and why professional journalists and editors should adjust the disproportionate attention given to contrarians. The role of climate change (CC) contrarians is neglected in climate change communication studies. Here the authors used a data-driven approach to identify CC contrarians and CC scientists and found that CC scientists have much higher citation impact than those for contrarians but lower media visibility.

[1]  J. Cook,et al.  Reply to Comment on ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature’ , 2013 .

[2]  Heinrich D. Holland,et al.  Living dangerously : the earth, its resources, and the environment , 1995 .

[3]  Derek J. Koehler,et al.  Can journalistic "false balance" distort public perception of consensus in expert opinion? , 2016, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[4]  Harry Eugene Stanley,et al.  Reputation and impact in academic careers , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[5]  Gregory N. Mandel,et al.  The Polarizing Impact of Science Literacy and Numeracy on Perceived Climate Change Risks , 2012 .

[6]  G. King,et al.  How the news media activate public expression and influence national agendas , 2017, Science.

[7]  Stasa Milojevic,et al.  Accuracy of simple, initials-based methods for author name disambiguation , 2013, J. Informetrics.

[8]  B. Head,et al.  Climate Change Scepticism: Reconsidering How to Respond to Core Criticisms of Climate Science and Policy , 2017 .

[9]  Caitlin Drummond,et al.  Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[10]  Miriam J. Metzger,et al.  The science of fake news , 2018, Science.

[11]  James Painter Journalistic Depictions of Uncertainty about Climate Change , 2016 .

[12]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news , 2019, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[13]  Anthony Leiserowitz,et al.  Climate on Cable , 2012 .

[14]  D. Kahan Climate-Science Communication and the Measurement Problem , 2015 .

[15]  A. Leiserowitz,et al.  Inoculating the Public against Misinformation about Climate Change , 2017, Global challenges.

[16]  A. Pentland,et al.  Computational Social Science , 2009, Science.

[17]  Sander van der Linden,et al.  Special issue article On the relationship between personal experience, affect and risk perception: The case of climate change , 2014 .

[18]  Robert J. Brulle Networks of Opposition: A Structural Analysis of U.S. Climate Change Countermovement Coalitions 1989–2015 , 2019, Sociological Inquiry.

[19]  M. Boykoff Public Enemy No. 1? , 2013 .

[20]  N. Oreskes The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change , 2004, Science.

[21]  I. Pavlidis,et al.  Cross-disciplinary evolution of the genomics revolution , 2018, Science Advances.

[22]  James Painter,et al.  Climate Skepticism in British Newspapers, 2007–2011 , 2016 .

[23]  Hilla Peretz,et al.  Ju n 20 03 Schrödinger ’ s Cat : The rules of engagement , 2003 .

[24]  Ullrich K. H. Ecker,et al.  Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: Exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence , 2017, PloS one.

[25]  P. Egan,et al.  Turning Personal Experience into Political Attitudes: The Effect of Local Weather on Americans’ Perceptions about Global Warming , 2012 .

[26]  Constantine Boussalis,et al.  Text-mining the signals of climate change doubt , 2016 .

[27]  S. Iyengar,et al.  Scientific communication in a post-truth society , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[28]  Sinan Aral,et al.  The spread of true and false news online , 2018, Science.

[29]  Carl T. Bergstrom,et al.  The Science of Science , 2018, Science.

[30]  A. Pentland,et al.  Life in the network: The coming age of computational social science: Science , 2009 .

[31]  L. Antilla Climate of scepticism: US newspaper coverage of the science of climate change , 2005 .

[32]  Matthew C. Nisbet,et al.  Climate change, cultural cognition, and media effects: Worldviews drive news selectivity, biased processing, and polarized attitudes , 2018, Public understanding of science.

[33]  B. Morton Fake news. , 2018, Marine pollution bulletin.

[34]  Hao Tam Ho,et al.  Source data files , 2019 .

[35]  Fake news threatens a climate literate world , 2017, Nature communications.

[36]  Christian Catalini,et al.  The incidence and role of negative citations in science , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[37]  A. Bostrom,et al.  Assessing what to address in science communication , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[38]  S. Adam,et al.  A changing climate of skepticism: The factors shaping climate change coverage in the US press , 2017, Public understanding of science.

[39]  Justin Farrell,et al.  Evidence-based strategies to combat scientific misinformation , 2019, Nature Climate Change.

[40]  S. Schneider,et al.  Expert credibility in climate change , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[41]  M. Boykoff The real swindle , 2008 .

[42]  Robert J. Brulle Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations , 2014, Climatic Change.

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

[44]  P. Doran,et al.  Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change , 2009 .

[45]  Robert J. Brulle,et al.  Shifting public opinion on climate change: an empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the U.S., 2002–2010 , 2012, Climatic Change.

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

[47]  Ethan Zuckerman,et al.  Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election , 2017 .

[48]  Feng Shi,et al.  Millions of online book co-purchases reveal partisan differences in the consumption of science , 2017, Nature Human Behaviour.

[49]  Thomas M. Nichols,et al.  The Death of Expertise: The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters , 2017 .

[50]  M. Boykoff,et al.  Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press☆ , 2004 .

[51]  Sven Engesser,et al.  Beyond false balance: How interpretive journalism shapes media coverage of climate change , 2017 .

[52]  Douglas Guilbeault,et al.  Social learning and partisan bias in the interpretation of climate trends , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[53]  A. McCright,et al.  The Politicization of Climate Change and Polarization in the American Public's Views of Global Warming, 2001–2010 , 2011 .

[54]  J. Moody,et al.  Disparate foundations of scientists’ policy positions on contentious biomedical research , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[55]  Alessandro Vespignani Modelling dynamical processes in complex socio-technical systems , 2011, Nature Physics.

[56]  Alexander M. Petersen,et al.  Inequality and cumulative advantage in science careers: a case study of high-impact journals , 2014, EPJ Data Science.

[57]  Jean-Loup Guillaume,et al.  Fast unfolding of communities in large networks , 2008, 0803.0476.

[58]  James Painter,et al.  Cross-national comparison of the presence of climate scepticism in the print media in six countries, 2007–10 , 2012 .

[59]  J. Farrell Network structure and influence of the climate change counter-movement , 2016 .

[60]  D. Barclay Fake News, Propaganda, and Plain Old Lies: How to Find Trustworthy Information in the Digital Age , 2018 .

[61]  Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia,et al.  The spread of low-credibility content by social bots , 2017, Nature Communications.

[62]  M. G. Morgan,et al.  Reflections on an interdisciplinary collaboration to inform public understanding of climate change, mitigation, and impacts , 2019, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[63]  M. Boykoff Who Speaks for the Climate?: Making Sense of Media Reporting on Climate Change , 2011 .

[64]  Ferenc Jankó,et al.  Is climate change controversy good for science? IPCC and contrarian reports in the light of bibliometrics , 2017, Scientometrics.

[65]  Emilio Ferrara,et al.  Bots increase exposure to negative and inflammatory content in online social systems , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.