Sigh, another in a long line of “trying to understand” the motivations and reasoning for people who disagree with them, but in reality are likely more informed than them.
I don’t have much to say about this ugliness, but I’ll let their writing speak for itself.
Abstract
Using data from Twitter (now X), this study deploys artificial intelligence (AI) and network analysis to map and profile climate change denialism across the United States. We estimate that 14.8% of Americans do not believe in climate change. This denialism is highest in the central and southern U.S. However, it also persists in clusters within states (e.g., California) where belief in climate change is high. Political affiliation has the strongest correlation, followed by level of education, COVID-19 vaccination rates, carbon intensity of the regional economy, and income. The analysis reveals how a coordinated social media network uses periodic events, such as cold weather and climate conferences, to sow disbelief about climate change and science, in general. Donald Trump was the strongest influencer in this network, followed by conservative media outlets and right-wing activists. As a form of knowledge vulnerability, climate denialism renders communities unprepared to take steps to increase resilience. As with other forms of misinformation, social media companies (e.g., X, Facebook, YouTube, TikTok) should flag accounts that spread falsehoods about climate change and collaborate on targeted educational campaigns.
Introduction
Climate change denialism persists in the United States, with estimates ranging from 12% to 26% of the U.S. population1,2. It is more pronounced in some states and regions3. Reasons for this denialism are multifaceted: Political affiliation and ideology, income, education, and exposure to extreme weather events are all important factors4,5,6. Denialism is more prevalent where local economies are highly dependent on fossil fuels7, in rural communities, and in populations where mistrust in science is pronounced8,9. Social media reaches millions of users, providing a key mechanism for influencers to spread misinformation10. The ability of social media to influence and harden attitudes was apparent in the response to COVID-19 vaccines11.
Understanding how and why climate change opinion varies geographically and documenting it at an actionable scale is crucial for communication campaigns, outreach, and other interventions12,13. Most estimates of the extent and geographic configuration of climate change denialism rely primarily on national surveys, with the Yale Climate Opinion Survey being the only dataset that provides estimates at the state and county levels for the entire U.S.3. These survey efforts, however, are time-intensive and expensive and are therefore destined to cover short time spans and, often, limited geographic extent. The Yale Survey combines data from more than 2500 national surveys and uses multinomial regression modeling to downscale estimates to subnational levels. Independent representative surveys conducted in states and metropolitan areas validate the predictions from the Yale Survey models3.
Mining social media data (e.g., Facebook, YouTube, and X, formerly Twitter) is a tantalizing alternative to survey-based approaches14,15. X is a social media platform with an extensive data repository. By adjusting for the skew toward certain demographic groups in users, data from this platform is useful for estimating public views on an array of topics, such as politics, social issues, and COVID-19 vaccination rates16,17. Data from Twitter has also been used in predictive modeling of election outcomes18. Account holders can misuse it to oppose scientific knowledge and spread misinformation19.
This study used Twitter data (2017–2019) to: (i) estimate the prevalence of climate change denialism at the state and county levels; (ii) identify typical profiles of climate change deniers; (iii) understand how social media promulgates climate change denialism through key influencers; and (iv) determine how world events are leveraged to promulgate attitudes about climate change.
We used a Deep Learning text recognition model to classify 7.4 million geocoded tweets containing keywords related to climate change. Posted by 1.3 million unique users in the U.S., these tweets were collected between September 2017 and May 2019 (see Online Methods S1). We classified these tweets about climate change into ‘for’ (belief) and ‘against’ (denial). Our analysis resulted in a profile of climate change deniers at the county level, provided insight into the networks of social media figures influential in promoting climate change denial, and generated insight into how these influencers use current events to foster this denial.
After confirming the validity of using social media data instead of information collected through surveys to capture public opinion on climate change at policy-relevant geographical scales, we found that denialism clusters in particular regions (and counties) of the country and amongst certain socio-demographic groups. Our analysis reveals how politicians, media figures, and conservative activists promulgated misinformation in the Twittersphere. It maps out how denialists and climate change believers have formed mostly separate Twitter communities, creating echo chambers. Such information provides a basis for developing strategies to counter this knowledge vulnerability and reduce the spread of mis- or disinformation by targeting the communities most at risk of not adopting measaures to increase resilience to the effects of climate change.
Results
Where in the U.S. is climate change denial prevalent?
Our study found that 14.8% of Americans deny that climate change is real (Fig. 1A), a percentage consistent with previous national studies (Fig. S4). Using geolocation information, we determined that denialism is highest in the Central part of the U.S. and in the South, with more than 20% of the populations of OK, MS, AL, and ND consisting of deniers. Along the West and East Coasts and New England, belief in climate change is highest. However, climate change denial varies substantially within states, often clustering in geographic swaths across multiple counties (Fig. 1B). For example, in Shasta County, California climate change denial is as high as 52%; yet overall less than 12% of the population of California does not believe in climate change. Similarly, the average percentage of deniers is 21% in Texas, but at the county-level this ranges from 13% in Travis County to 67% in Hockley County.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-50591-6
The full study can be found here.
H/T mark-blr
The foolish arrogance of treating climate skepticism like a pathology that needs to be studied.
Not actually arrogance. When a gold medalist looks down at others, that’s arrogance. When the guy in 150th place looks down at others, that’s an ass. They don’t qualify to be arrogant.
Then again, I’ve been trying to understand the pathology of believers in climate crisis. They have stereotypical views about the US demographics. They’ve been programmed by Hollywood to believe themselves to be more educated than the people living outside the liberal urban centers. They entertain an underlying belief that humanity is destroying the earth–a belief they don’t have the reasoning power to question. They been brainwashed to believe there is a social hierarchy of “experts” at the top trying to explain to Barney Fife citizen scientists, to flat-earth believers, at the bottom. Mental pathology it is. People who have been inculcated with nonsense, and who strut around with slobber on their chins.
In the former USSR, dissidents were often committed to mental hospitals. This was known as the medicalization of dissent. I can’t imagine the experience was better than exile in the Gulags, but it was likewise a reminder of what happens to those that don’t comply.
Well if these so called “Arbiters of Truth” want to call out climate liars.
Then the best place to start is with the land base temp data post 1980.
Because since the use of AWS for temp recording we are been lied to daily about the daytime max temps been reached, by anywhere between 0.3C to 3C depanding on the weather on the day over that what lig thermometers would record.
So when they start calling out the post 1980 land based warming trend for the utter crap it is, then l will start taking these clowns seriously.
I didn’t read the article super carefully, but I did not see a definition of “climate denialism”. It seems it is defined only by the keywords they look for on “X” – pretty poor way to analyze complex opinions. The abstract talks about the harm of making communities “unprepared to take steps to increase resilience.” I would argue that the real challenge is making our communities resilient to the harms of “net-zero” type efforts.
They are calling for censorship of “inconvenient” truths.
“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”― George Washington
>> This study used Twitter data (2017–2019) to: (i) estimate the prevalence of climate change denialism
It would be interesting what qualifies for that! I myself to not consider myself a climate denier and take offense on that expression. However, I am happy to recount and discuss facts which contradict mainstream opinions.
For example the fact that the statistics professor Dr. Wyner under oath declared that the hockey stick publication was made using p-hacking, which I see as fraud.
Also unlike Mann he is an expert in that field!
I’d like to see some of these social “scientists” conduct a study into how many people believe the risks of climate change are overstated and why?
It would have been useful for Gounaridis to have defined what he means by climate change denier. I for one admit to a slow increase in global average temperature with some reservations, chief of which is the failure of NOAA’s Climate Reference Network to show any increase in the temperature of Lower 48 States. Perhaps that is just due to a bit of American exceptionalism? It’s the consequences of slowly increasing temperature that I cannot see.
Are storms, wildfires, floods and droughts getting worse? The data says none of these phenomena are getting worse. They are in fact staying the same or getting better. Are polar bears dying off? No, they are increasing in numbers. Is sea level increasing? Yes and has been at a slow and constant global rate for the past 6,000 years with local exceptions due to geologic elevation changes. Do the world’s tide gauges show any unusual increase in sea level during the past few decades? No, they show a constant rate of increase with oldest of these gauges showing no change in rate since before Abraham Lincoln was elected President. Is the increasing CO2 making the Earth greener. Indeed it is.
Am I in Gounaridis’ view a denier because I cannot see any adverse consequences?
I’m sure they will be added to the hate group list of the Sothern Poverty Law Center any day now. Not
The SPLC needs to add itself to their list of hate groups.
I don’t know anyone who denies climate change. The climate has always changed and always will. I know a hell of a lot of people that don’t believe the lie of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change. Most of those people are pretty smart.
I have never seen any convincing scientific evidence that human released CO2 has had any effect on the global climate.
I have asked many times… but that evidence remains missing in action.
“I have asked many times… but that evidence remains missing in action.”
Me, too. No evidence has been produced so far.
[snip harassment]
JFC, just stop with this harassing crap.
Richard states well known processes and you sky dragon, no such thing as back radiation, violation of thermodynamics harassers, attack him relentlessly.
This is not a greenhouse effect denying site.
And no, I’m not going to give you sources explaining why the sky is blue, because that’s the level at which you are arguing.
“Donald Trump was the strongest influencer “
Right, and the dinosaurs died from eating double cheeseburgers.
Twitter is the data source — get real.
” In early 2021, 23% of U.S. adults said they use Twitter. The share of Americans using the platform remained steady over several years …”
I’ve never been on Twitter/X. Am I missing anything?
It is disturbing that the analysts were able to extract such personal information as income level and COVID vaccination data from social media platforms.
Secondly, when I lived there, New England was on the East Coast. When did it move.
Lastly, when will authors realize that their audience is basically aware, and cease telling us that X was formerly Twitter?
You can find people who claim the Earth is flat. I suspect almost all of those people are having some fun and pulling the wool over researchers’ eyes.
But people who don’t believe in climate change? The climate has always changed and always will. The climate is supposed to change. Does anyone imagine we live in a steady-state universe save for the effects of mankind upon this world?
To not believe in climate change is almost as ludicrous as believing in climate change. It’s like saying I believe in gravity, and feeling oneself to have made a profoundly intelligent and morally superior declaration. (See also I believe in science.) Savvy employers and college recruiters should add a question about believing in climate change and pass on any candidate who says yay or nay.
Of course there is climate change. There always has been and we have always adapted to it. However it is natural and not man made. Thus we cannot do anything about it, making Net Zero policies cause self inflicted harm which only benefits authoritarian countries like Russia and China.
Next thing will be the use of AI to analyse all the dirty looks the climate righteous get whilst shopping in supermarkets and why this menace must be assuaged before someone’s ego gets so damaged they are forced to sue A.N.Other or Others …
Shocking to know how low standards of science have sunk what with COVID-19 and Carbon Dioxide’s effect on temperatures.
They used Twitter data from the time when Twitter was actively censoring skeptics so the low % is not surprising. Bias in bias out.
Their starting point is flawed so the rest of their research is even more flawed.
Twitter has about 90-100 million users in the US.Of that 90-100 only about 5% of that group uses the site more then 1 -5 times a week. Of those only about 5-12% actually post comments or click on the attachments or like an article, so in real world you dealing with less then 1 million people, who are not random people as some are paid by the number of posts they put on twitter and the number of views or likes .
Many form groups that will “like” or “repost” a tweet/article and not actually read what was posted or wrote and are only responding to what they were encouraged to respond (sometimes by compeating website) or someone they follow
And just like GOOGLE or FACEBOOK the data that these people used can changed by google/facebook/twitter,by changing a couple lines in their report algorithims to this group
Lysenkoism….
Any of these papers that don’t have definitions of their terms should be rejected by the journals. What do they mean when they refer to climate, climate denial. climate change, climate belief, etc. None of their arm waving and mathematical gymnastics can even be interpreted let alone understood or properly refuted if you can’t tell what they are talking about.
Yes, science starts with precise definitions of that which is to be measured.
‘Using data from Twitter’ sort of says it all.
”Climate deniers” deny:
Reality is a bitch for people like these authors.
So it is 14% of those who participate in ‘social media’. Bet it is much higher in those who do not muck with it.
“As with other forms of misinformation, social media companies (e.g., X, Facebook, YouTube, TikTok) should flag accounts that spread falsehoods about climate change and collaborate on targeted educational campaigns.” This tells you what you need to know. Dissent will not be tolerated. This is reminiscent of re-education in the book 1984.
Yes, the radical Left is definitely trying to dominate the conversation.
That’s what radical leftists do. They want to silence any other voices.
The radical Leftists are probably closer to dominating the conversation in the Western world than they have ever been, fueled by radical leftwing billionaires who are trying to impose their will on the rest of us.
What kind of sciencavist would consider Twitter or indeed X to be representative sample? Just ask the boke down the pub.
I talk to many people with high trade and engineering qualifications.
Most of them concur completely with my point of view that the anti-CO2 nonsense is based on massive ignorance or brain-washing..
… and that Net-Zero is one of the most moronic policies ever adopted anywhere.
Most agree that CO2 has an immeasurable effect on climate.
Even dickie agrees with this fact… otherwise he would produce those measurements.
But he can’t… and he knows he can’t.
At 14.8% (come now, they “know” it to three significant figures?), it appears that their job is done. Henceforth, cease all “research” funding and media propaganda on the subject of climate. Media, climate “scientists” and NGO staff should quit and try to find real jobs.
Furthermore, they should immediately swear off all uses of fossil fuels and products made with or from FF. No, they say? That would make them part of the 14.8%.
These people are pitiful, they say upfront that they have accepted a belief in climate change. Accepting a belief is not science. They can call their belief anything they want but if they were honest they would call it CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming). The climate changes all the time, saying you believe in climate change is meaningless. Call your belief what you want the rest of us to believe. CAGW because if it isn’t catastrophic what is the point, if it isn’t anthropogenic what is the point?
It is telling that the abstract talks of a “belief in climate change” as opposed to believing that climate change is happening or not happening. It’s a religious context, which is about right for the “believers”.
Who and where are these “Climate Deniers” ? I have never met a person who denies there is climate
I certainly don’t deny that climate has always been changeable.
“Climate Change”, as defined by the IPCC as human forced, by CO2. (hence all the Net-Zero nonsense)
No-one has been able to present any evidence that this is happening.
Apart from a natural and highly beneficial slight warming out of the LIA…
….. in what way has the global climate changed.??
Show human causation for any change you can identify.
Provide evidence to back your conjecture.
Apologies in advance, but I’m “obliged” to enter “pedant mode” here …
“CC = Anthropogenic CC, and only Anthropogenic CC” is from the (parent) UNFCCC organisation, not the (offshoot) IPCC.
From the “Annex VII : Glossary” of the AR6 WG-I report, on page 2222 :
IPCC : CC = Anthropogenic CC plus Natural CC
UNFCCC : CC = (only) Anthropogenic CC, but “Natural CC” is now “Climate Variability”