An analysis of 386 contrarians & expert scientists across a 100,000 digital & print media sources shows that contrarians are featured in 49% more articles but only >1% in mainstream media!
Major Discrepancy in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists compared with contrarians Direct comparison of individuals shows #Climatechange deniers were featured in 49% more media publications than Scientists.
Is this a joke? Oddities abound. Contrarians are not named, but sourced to the Desmog blog (w/ other sources), considered authoritative. Says reports by have been “debunked”, citing ClimateFeedback.
"climate scientists should increasingly exert their authority in scientific and public discourse" - - #climatechange #climatecrisis #climatebrawl
'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.'
wrt I requested article be retracted as it’s fundamentally flawed & defames me among others. This is their reply “I would like to inform you that we have removed the Supplementary Information file from the article page”. This does not resolve this issue.
Hmm, we have some work to do. "Contrarians are featured in 49% more media articles than scientists." #climate communications study.
Discrepancy in scientific authority and media visibility of climate via thanks
If profit-based media were in the business of delivering the truth, this would not be. Profit-based media is in the business of getting views and advertiser bucks.
Discrepancy in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists and contrarians
Note the new editorial statement at "the editors are aware of a number of criticisms related to this work. These criticisms are being considered by the editors."
Es gibt eine Diskrepanz: Allerdings eher zwischen wissenschaftlicher Kompetenz und Medienrepräsentation: Von einer verantwortungsvollen Presse kann man erwarten, dass sie wissenschaftliche Kontroversen nicht als Sensation verkauft.
2007 I had climate “contrarian” Marc Morano in my movie "Sizzle", 2010 I warned of his media savvy , today he is a Fox News regular & most prolific skeptic in this new article: #scicomm
386 climate contrarians. 386 top-cited climate scientists. 100,000 media articles. Who gets quoted most? (thread)
Nature paper published this week researching the media impact + credentials of folks in climate science has run into trouble. The paper included actual name lists of good people vs. bad people or "pre-eminent" scientists vs. "contrarians or deniers" .
Discrepancy in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists and contrarians via
“Here we show via direct comparison that [climate change] contrarians are featured in 49% more media articles than scientists [overall, but in only] 1% [more] mainstream media [articles]." See also distribution per media source —e.g., v.
Climate change contrarians are disproportionately more frequently visible in media articles than climate change scientists
Interesting data, but those are some pretty normative statements for a science paper.
This? Is your concern with their methodology? Their data? Maybe the shoe fits.
Does climate community realize Marc Morano is most prolific voice of skepticism by a looooong way? He has 35% more articles than any others. There should be an Inst for the Study of Morano #ClimateChange #ClimateCommunication #scicomm
Discrepancy in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists and contrarians FYI and ...
I'm instinctively reluctant to categorize people rather than ideas and hence am not a fan of this work on #climate "skeptics".
1/ New study: #Climate "contrarians are featured in 49% more media articles than scientists." Note that made the same point (with contemporaneous data) in his 2006 movie. It's still true.