Scientists suffering insults and mass-spam are abandoning Twitter for alternative social networks as hostile climate-change denialism surges on the platform following Elon Musk's takeover.
Researchers have documented an explosion of hate and misinformation on Twitter since the Tesla billionaire took over in October 2022 -- and now experts say communicating about climate science on the social network on which many of them rely is getting harder.
Policies aimed at curbing the deadly effects of climate change are accelerating, prompting a rise in what experts identify as organised resistance by opponents of climate reform.
Peter Gleick, a climate and water specialist with nearly 99,000 followers, announced on May 21 he would no longer post on the platform because it was amplifying racism and sexism.
While he is accustomed to "offensive, personal, ad hominem attacks, up to and including direct physical threats", he told AFP, "in the past few months, since the takeover and changes at Twitter, the amount, vituperativeness, and intensity of abuse has skyrocketed".
Robert Rohde, a physicist and lead scientist at the non-profit environmental data analysis group Berkeley Earth, analyzed activity on hundreds of accounts of widely followed specialists posting about climate science before and after the takeover.
He found climate scientists' tweets were losing impact. The average number of likes they received was down 38 percent and average retweets fell 40 percent.
Twitter has not commented directly about what changes it has made to the algorithms that drive traffic and visibility.
Contacted at its email address for comment, its press department returned its now customary reply, an automated email with a "poop" emoji.
But in a tweet seen as an acknowledgement of a deliberate change, Musk wrote in January: "People on the right should see more 'left-wing' stuff and people on the left should see more 'right-wing' stuff. But you can just block it if you want to stay in an echo chamber."
In another analysis, prominent climatologist Katharine Hayhoe monitored responses to a tweet on climate change which she published twice, as an experiment, on separate dates before and after the takeover.
She counted the hostile comments and examined them for signs that they came from bots -– automated accounts that researchers say are pushing mass misinformation.
Inauthentic accounts can be identified by analysis tools such as Bot Sentinel.
Replies from apparent trolls or bots increased 15 to 30 times over a two-month period compared to the previous two years, Hayhoe tweeted in January 2023.
"Before October, my account was growing steadily at a rate of at least several thousand new followers a month. Since then, it has not changed," she told AFP.
Andrew Dessler, professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, said he was moving most of his climate communication to Substack, a newsletter platform.
"Climate communications on Twitter are less useful (now) given that I can see that my tweets are getting less engagement," he said. "In response to almost any tweet concerning climate change, I find my notifications inundated with replies from verified accounts making misleading or misguided claims."
Others have abandoned Twitter altogether.
Hayhoe said that of a Twitter list of 3,000 climate scientists that she keeps, 100 disappeared after the takeover.
Glaciologist Ruth Mottram had more than 10,000 followers on Twitter but left in February and joined an alternative scientists' forum powered by Mastodon -– a crowdfunded, decentralized grouping of social networks founded in 2016.
"It's really been a revelation in many ways. It's a much quieter and more thoughtful platform," she told AFP.
On Mastodon, "I haven't had any abuse at all or even people questioning climate change. I think we'd become far too used to it on Twitter... I had blocked loads of accounts over on the birdsite (Twitter)," she said.
Michael Mann, a prominent climate scientist at the University of Pennsylvania and a regular target for abuse by deniers of climate change, said he believed the rise in misinformation was "organized and orchestrated" by opponents of climate reforms.
"I've seen a huge rise in trolls and bots. Many target tweets of mine for attack," he said.
Mann's 2021 book "The New Climate War" documented action by oil producers to sow climate denialism on social media.
"The professional trolls manipulate the online environment with strategic posts that generate conflict and division, leading to a feeding frenzy," he told AFP.
© 2023 AFP
23 Comments
GBR48
It's an unwise mistake to assume that the pushback is coming from a secret army of trolls paid for by BigFossil.
Protest tactics are doing a lot to generate pushback. Blocking roads and intervening in sports and cultural events are going down really badly with ordinary people.
What people might view favourably as a vague concept, they soon turn against when it impacts upon them - high energy prices, power cuts, water rationing, holiday flight bans and ordinary goods becoming scarce. Excessive and pointless biosecurity/trade barriers restricting the availability of plants, seeds and even food. Low emission zones are going to be very unpopular when people discover the consequences of them - intended and unintended. Labour's ULEZ may be one of the few things that damages their electoral chances when it kicks in. In some places in the UK, Greens have got into power on a wave of people wanting a better world, failed badly at basic politics and been voted out.
There is also crisis fatigue. The belief that continuously burying people in negativity and fear will scare them into action doesn't seem to be working. People are just not seeing or hearing it any more, like ads on the net, and mentally changing channels to protect their mental health.
The overwhelming focus on climate change and the toxic way dissent by non-government scientists was attacked in the pandemic may be damaging public perceptions of science in general. We don't hear much positive news about scientific breakthroughs in other fields, and some news is blocked or sidelined on political grounds.
Academic science has always accepted dissent and doesn't do national borders. Brexit cutting the UK off from EU research programmes and Chinese students being blocked from working abroad are examples of toxic nationalism degrading the status of science in general.
Finally, climate change action is promoted by (well paid) scientists and young activists, often students (funded by the bank of mum and dad). Most people are not well paid and have financial responsibilities, ones that are tougher in the current fiscal climate. Being lectured to by kids and told that everything you do is wrong and that you are destroying humanity, when you have just had a long day at work, doesn't go down well. Elderly people do not appreciate young people telling them to walk or cycle to the shops, when they patently cannot. Both activists and scientists really need to spend more time out of their bubbles. If they want to get their message across, they need to understand the priorities and situations of their audience a good deal more.
Moonraker
And the more the denialism is overcome by real events in the real world, the more the denialists have to shout their denial to try to make it true. And policing dissent from an unsubstantiated ideology is vital to maintain it. That's how it works. On the other hand, there are few realists threatening to kill and maim the denialists. Wonder why that is.
virusrex
But that is not what is being described in the article, which is more about invalid forms of pushback coming from different sourced including troll accounts according to the results of tools made specifically to identify those accounts.
The problem is when there is a clear objective negative development not favorable for anyone except the obscenely rich, at that point people are either being aware or not of what is beneficial for them. Opting for a temporary small benefit even at the cost of a huge permanent detrimental situation is irrational enough to be avoided, complicating that with hostility against the professionals that warn about this irrationality makes ti even worse.
The attacks were not for non-goverment scientists, they were against people repeatedly found to push false or misleading information not supported by the evidence or even contradicted by the available evidence. Which is part of what science is supposed to do, fight against falsehoods, that people with a personal interest are manipulating the people into believing anybody with a different opinion was attacked (which has not been the case) is what needs to be solved.
If people are being manipulated to act irrationally, pandering to that irrationality is a "solution" terribly inefficient, because it ends up promoting the same thing to keep happening.
RKL
Agreed, and excellent point. Even one of the "scientists" in the article seems to make such claim without any validation.
Eastman
everyones choice.
you like to stay and have no problem with rules-you stay.
you dislike rules or wont obey-tan you leave.
same thing here in this forum.
there are many places where they can publish their findings and "science"... and its a "human right" to be on twitter anyway
Babe Ruth
ALT headline;
"Climate 'scientists' flee Twitter as their hysteria and misinformation is called out"
Good riddance.
ian
Global temp increase of +1.5 degrees C projected to be reached on or before 2027.
I guess we'll find out what happens then/after.
But they should be sounding the alarm loudly even before now.
ian
Also seems no country is serious with their Paris commitments
ian
Maybe all the scientists of the world should renew their commitment to the consensus and get together once again to show everyone that the world is in grave danger.
Babe Ruth
Pure misinformation.
According to NOAA's own data;
The earth is cooling in the last 8 years at a rate of 0.11 degrees C/decade despite 450+ billion tons of emissions worth 14% of total manmade CO2 in the atmosphere.
Earth is cooling when the climate hysterics insist it should be warming.
CO2 warming is a hoax.
The west is in a desperate battle between those whose hysteria will kill billions in short order, and those who want to raise those same billions out of poverty.
ian
Wow that's like a battle between good and evil
ian
Anyway could you please post the source link? Not doubting what you posted im just curious with the odd (to me) presentation, (degrees C/decade) of change for a period spanning only 8years
TaiwanIsNotChina
Who is raising billions out of poverty? Nobody except their own citizens and anybody can do that.
ian
You should be glad then that it's coming soon so we'll know for sure. 2027 is just right around the corner
virusrex
Refuted by the same article when they clearly explain what how the bots can be identified, if your argument completley depends on ignoring the part of the text that debunks it that means you don't have an argument in the first place.
Calling valid data and conclusions hysteria without even trying to argue against them first only make evident a personal antiscientific bias.
Any reference for this? Because the experts completely contradict you in ther official communications:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
If the scientific community of the whole world coincides in something and can show the data to prove it while nameless people on the internet claim the scientists are all wrong based on nothing it is quite clear who is the one being wrong here.
ian
Policies like what?
Raw Beer
Exactly, some need to remain in their echo chamber that doesn't question their "evidence".
Carl N Jpn Gcjp
"They" don't like the Hate Speech, alternate opinions, and problems on ANY Social Media site when "they" are on the receiving end and roles reversed. Good move by Elon to take over Twitter.
virusrex
Questioning the evidence is routine for scientists, what has no place in any valid discussion is to endlessly repeat falsehoods and misrepresentations trying to manipulate people to reject valid conclusions for the benefit of very few.
Alternative opinions are not the problem, things that can be easily demonstrated as false and threats are. Allowing things that bring zero benefit to the discussion without any penalty only cheapens the medium.
ian
If they really believe in what they are espousing they shouldn't have been deterred that easily.
Should have been the least of their concerns because if what they believe is true then the climate apocalypse is fast coming.
What they need to do is precisely to confront and convince those criticizing them, not run away to some place where everyone is saying the same thing
fallaffel
The dumbest people are usually the loudest. Too busy hurling insults to educate themselves.
fallaffel
Lol. In the real world, "The past eight years were the warmest on record globally, ..." (https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/past-eight-years-confirmed-be-eight-warmest-record#:~:text=2022%20is%20the%208th,eight%20warmest%20years%20on%20record.).
FizzBit
The MSM will be harping on Musk for the near future, still, he’s a modern day Einstein and hero for humanity.
invalid CSRF