DOCSLIB.ORG

1 Validation of a Novel Climate Change Denial Measure Using Item

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 Validation of a Novel Climate Change Denial Measure Using Item 1 Validation of a Novel Climate Change Denial Measure Using Item Response Theory Mr. George Lorama*,, Dr. Mathew Linga, Mr. Andrew Heada, Dr. Edward J.R. Clarkeb a Deakin University, Geelong, Australia, Misinformation Lab, School of Psychology b Federation University, Mount Helen, Australia, School of Health and Life Sciences * Corresponding Author, Misinformation Lab, Deakin University, Locked Bag 20001, Geelong VIC 3220, Australia. Email address: [email protected] Declarations of Interest: All authors declare that no conflict of interest exists. Acknowledgements: This work was supported by Deakin University (4th Year Student Research Funding; 4th Year Publication Award). 2 Abstract Climate change denial persists despite overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue. However, the rates of denial reported in the literature are inconsistent, potentially as a function of ad hoc measurement of denial. This further impacts on interpretability and integration of research. This study aims to create a standardised measure of climate change denial using Item Response Theory (IRT). The measure was created by pooling items from existing denial measures, and was administered to a U.S. sample recruited using Amazon MTurk (N = 206). Participants responded to the prototype measure as well as being measured on a number of constructs that have been shown to correlate with climate change denial (authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, mistrust in scientists, and conspiracist beliefs). Item characteristics were calculated using a 2-parameter IRT model. After screening out poorly discriminating and redundant items, the scale contained eight items. Discrimination indices were high, ranging from 2.254 to 30.839, but item difficulties ranged from 0.437 to 1.167, capturing a relatively narrow band of climate change denial. Internal consistency was high, ω = .94. Moderate to strong correlations were found between the denial measure and the convergent measures. This measure is a novel and efficient approach to the measurement of climate change denial and includes highly discriminating items that could be used as screening tools. The limited range of item difficulties suggests that different forms of climate change denial may be closer together than previously thought. Future research directions include validating the measure in larger samples, and examining the predictive utility of the measure. Keywords: Climate Change Denial, Measurement, Item Response Theory 3 Validation of a Novel Climate Change Denial Measure Using Item Response Theory 1. Introduction 1.1. Background Despite overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is occurring, and is due to human activity (Doran & Zimmerman, 2009; IPCC, 2018), there is still a proportion of the population who deny some or all of the elements of climate change (Capstick & Pidgeon, 2014; Leviston & Walker, 2012; Reser, Bradley, Glendon, Ellul, & Callaghan, 2012). This phenomenon is called ‘climate change denial’ or ‘climate scepticism’ and has been observed in many different contexts (e.g., Capstick & Pidgeon, 2014; Leviston & Walker, 2012; Reser et al., 2012). Public acceptance of the scientific evidence of climate change is important in the transition to a low carbon economy (Poortinga, Spence, Whitmarsh, Capstick, & Pidgeon, 2011), and therefore, climate change denial may have deleterious effects on climate change mitigation efforts. 1.2. Heterogenous rates of climate change denial Varying rates of climate change denial have been measured in the literature. Leviston and Walker (2012) found that 17.2% of participants did not believe that climate change was occurring, with similar rates found by Capstick and Pidgeon (2014). This is in contrast with Hornsey, Fielding, McStay, Reser, and Bradley (2016), who found that 4.2% of participants denied climate change, and Reser et al. (2012), who found denial rates of 6.5%. Other studies have found rates somewhere in between, such as Whitmarsh (2011), who found that 12% of participants agreed with the statement “Climate change is not a real problem”. These studies were undertaken in comparable populations (i.e., Australia & U.K.), making the discrepancies in denial rates quite surprising. This may be a function of true population differences, measurement differences, or a combination of both. It is important to note that these studies used different scales to measure climate change denial. Scales differed 4 in terms of length, question framing, and response options. For example, Leviston & Walker (2012) simply asked participants whether they believed climate change was happening, with a dichotomous yes/no response option, then asking what they thought was causing climate change, with four response options (e.g., “I think that climate change is happening, but it’s just a natural fluctuation in Earth’s temperatures”). This is in contrast with Reser et al. (2012), who used four questions and a combination of different response options, such as yes/ no/don’t know, and Likert scales; and Whitmarsh (2011) who asked participants to rate 12 statements on a 5-point Likert scale. Other measures include questions that appear to be double-barrelled, for example, “Even if we do experience some consequences from climate change, we will be able to cope with them” (Capstick & Pidgeon, 2014). The way this particular question is framed asks the reader to imagine that climate change is real, which may cause inconsistent responding for those who deny climate change. Questions such as these may not be measuring the construct of climate change denial reliably. 1.3. Impact of question framing on responses The measures mentioned in section 1.2 are a small sample of all existing climate change denial measures, with most studies either creating their own measure, or amending an existing one. This has led to a proliferation of climate change denial measures, and the absence of a standard measure may partly explain the differences in observed denial rates between studies. Greenhill, Leviston, Leonard, and Walker (2014) found that differences in question framing and response options affected belief responses. When asked about the causes of climate change, and given options including “both natural and anthropogenic”, the majority of people chose this option. However, when not given this option, participants were split down the middle, choosing either natural or anthropogenic. Differences such as this make it difficult to effectively compare denial rates between studies. Additionally, Leviston, Leitch, Greenhill, Leonard, and Walker (2011) found that when given more nuanced options 5 for causation beliefs (e.g., “partly human and partly natural”, “mainly natural” etc.), participants were less likely to endorse ‘natural fluctuation’ than ‘human induced’ answers, compared with when given dichotomous response options (natural or human induced). These findings indicate that when measuring climate change denial, subtle variations in items and response options can have significant impacts on observed denial rates. 1.4. Importance of reliable measurement It is important to have accurate and consistent measurement of public beliefs. Governments, industries, and organisations observe public sentiment to assist decision- making on important issues such as climate change (Reser et al., 2012). Another important reason for consistent measurement is in gauging the efficacy of interventions that aim to reduce climate change denial. Research has shown mixed evidence for intervention effectiveness (e.g., Benegal & Scruggs, 2018; Hart & Nisbet, 2011; McCright, Charters, Dentzman, & Dietz, 2016). However, as all of these studies measured denial differently, the variation in denial rates may be partly due to disparity of sensitivity between measures. Related to this, the absence of a standard scale or measure makes it difficult to integrate research findings and compare interventions. Therefore, it is important to have a consistent, reliable measure of climate change denial in order to improve the ability to integrate and compare research findings. However, the test theory that a measure is built on can impact the adaptability, reliability, and efficiency of the measure. 1.5. Differences in test frameworks Most psychological measures are founded on one of two dominant test theories: Classical Test Theory (CTT) or Item Response Theory (IRT). CTT is the underpinning of existing denial measures, and is based on the assumption that an individual’s observed score is a combination of their true score plus some amount of error (de Champlain, 2010). The advantages of CTT are that it has relatively weak assumptions that are easily met, and is 6 designed in such a way that enables simple calculation of summary scores (de Champlain, 2010). However, CTT is a ‘test-dependent’ theory - that is, only the total score of the test can be interpreted, rather than responses to individual items (Bortolotti, Tezza, de Andrade, Bornia, & de Sousa Júnior, 2013). Generally, responses to a number of items are summed, and the total score is compared to a pre-determined cut-off. The reliance on the total score means that long tests are often required in order to attain an acceptable level of reliability, and additionally, missing response data can be difficult to process. Furthermore, when calculating summary scores using CTT, each individual item is given equal weighting. For example, an item in a climate change denial measure might only be answered affirmatively by individuals who score in the top 5% of climate change
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Climate Change in the Era of Post-Truth
    09_ARBOLEDA_EDITEDPROOF_KS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/8/2018 2:50 PM Climate Change in the Era of Post- Truth INTRODUCTION In The Madhouse Effect: How Climate Change Denial is Threatening our Planet, Destroying our Politics, and Driving us Crazy,1 climate scientist Michael Mann joins with Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Tom Toles to take on climate change denialism. Mann, the Director of the Earth System Science Center at The Pennsylvania State University, augments his prose with cartoons from Toles, who normally draws for the editorial section of the Washington Post.2 Together, Mann and Toles set out to debunk the main arguments that special interest groups use to undermine climate change policy. The book begins with an introduction to the scientific method and its application to climate change science.3 It then describes the current and potential effects of climate change on everyday life.4 In its second half, the book transitions to the politics surrounding climate change in the United States.5 A major focus of the book is the “war on climate science,” the phrase Mann and Toles use to describe how the fossil fuel industry has created misinformation to discourage action on climate change.6 The Madhouse Effect was published in 2016, at a moment when the United States was choosing between Democratic and Republican presidential candidates whose climate change agendas differed wildly. The book’s publication failed to avert the election of President Donald Trump, a climate change denier who has referred to the phenomenon as a “hoax” created by China.7 Still, The Madhouse Effect presents a valuable depiction of the underground currents that influence DOI: https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38W669857 Copyright © 2018 Regents of the University of California 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Can You Spot COVID-19 Misinformation?
    Can You Spot COVID-19 Misinformation? We’re all seeking the latest information on the COVID-19 pandemic and what might be coming next. But how can we spot and avoid the false information that is also circulating, especially on social media? Here are some things to look out for. Have you received a message from your friend Did you see a statement being shared on social that says her aunt/teacher/colleague knows networks that looks like it has come from the someone who works in the ER and has the government or a health authority? following information? If so: Be cautious. If so: Be a detective. Lots of copy and paste It may be ‘imposter rumors are spread content’, which is this way. when it’s not. Action: try pasting the Action: social networks. If you website of the organization see lots of examples, it quoted and check whether has likely travelled a long the information on their way before it got to you. site is a match. Maybe someone sent you a list of top tips to Did you see that very dramatic video on social media avoid the virus, like eating certain foods or using showing the latest updates relating to COVID-19? home remedies? If so: Be skeptical. If so: Look closer. There’s no food or Sometimes videos and supplement that can stop pictures being shared on you getting this virus, social media aren’t quite and there’s currently no what they seem. treatment - you can only try to manage the symptoms. Action: try reverse image searching pictures ? Action: consult the latest to see if they have been guidelines from the World used before.
    [Show full text]
  • How Do Climate Change Skeptics Engage with Opposing Views?
    How do climate change skeptics engage with opposing views? Understanding mechanisms of social identity and cognitive dissonance in an online forum PREPRINT Lisa Oswald∗ Jonathan Bright Hertie School Oxford Internet Institute Friedrichstraße 180 University of Oxford 10117 Berlin, Germany 1 St Giles’, Oxford OX1 3JS, UK [email protected] [email protected] February 15, 2021 ABSTRACT Does engagement with opposing views help break down ideological ‘echo chambers’; or does it backfire and reinforce them? This question remains critical as academics, policymakers and activists grapple with the question of how to regulate political discussion on social media. In this study, we contribute to the debate by examining the impact of opposing views within a major climate change skeptic online community on ‘Reddit’. A large sample of posts (N = 3000) was manually coded as either dissonant or consonant which allowed the automated classification of the full dataset of more than 50,000 posts, with codes inferred from linked websites. We find that ideologically dissonant submissions act as a stimulant to activity in the community: they received more attention (comments) than consonant submissions, even though they received lower scores through up-voting and down-voting. Users who engaged with dissonant submissions were also more likely to return to the forum. Consistent with identity theory, confrontation with opposing views triggered activity in the forum, particularly among users that are highly engaged with the community. In light of the findings, theory of social identity and echo chambers is discussed and enhanced. Keywords Online community · climate change skepticism · reaction to opposition · dissonance · opinion polarisation · social identity · echo chamber arXiv:2102.06516v1 [cs.SI] 12 Feb 2021 Introduction Scientists worldwide consider climate change as one of the greatest challenges of our time (IPCC, 2015).
    [Show full text]
  • Media Coverage of International Climate Change Policy • Chandra Lal Pandey and Priya A
    The Media and the Major Emitters: Media Coverage of International Climate Change Policy • Chandra Lal Pandey and Priya A. Kurian* Abstract News media outlets are crucial for the dissemination of information on climate change issues, but the nature of the coverage varies across the world, depending on local geo- political and economic contexts. Despite extensive scholarship on media and climate change, less attention has been paid to comparing how climate change is reported by news media in developed and developing countries. This article undertakes a cross- national study of how elite newspapers in four major greenhouse gas emitting countries— the United States, the United Kingdom, China and India—frame coverage of climate change negotiations. We show that framing is similar by these newspapers in developing countries, but there are clear differences in framing in the developed world, and between the developed and developing countries. While an overwhelming majority of these news stories and the frames they deploy are pegged to the stance of domestic institutions in the developing countries, news frames from developed countries are more varied. Despite the overwhelming scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic cli- mate change and the threat it poses to the planet, international policy responses— most notably in the form of a global climate treaty—remain fragmented and inadequate. The on-going negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are marked by a fundamental dis- juncture between
    [Show full text]
  • SCIENCE and HEALTH MISINFORMATION in the DIGITAL AGE: How Does It Spread? Who Is Vulnerable? How Do We Fight It?
    SCIENCE AND HEALTH MISINFORMATION IN THE DIGITAL AGE: How does it spread? Who is vulnerable? How do we fight it? ERIC MERKLEY & PETER LOEWEN J U LY, 2021 ABOUT PPF Good Policy. Better Canada. The Public Policy Forum builds bridges among diverse participants in the policy-making process and gives them a platform to examine issues, offer new perspectives and feed fresh ideas into critical policy discussions. We believe good policy is critical to making a better Canada—a country that’s cohesive, prosperous and secure. We contribute by: . Conducting research on critical issues . Convening candid dialogues on research subjects . Recognizing exceptional leaders Our approach—called Inclusion to Conclusion—brings emerging and established voices to policy conversations, which informs conclusions that identify obstacles to success and pathways forward. PPF is an independent, non-partisan charity whose members are a diverse group of private, public and non-profit organizations. ppforum.ca @ppforumca © 2021, Public Policy Forum 1400 - 130 Albert Street Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1P 5G4 613.238.7858 ISBN: 978-1-77452-085-7 WITH THANKS TO OUR PARTNERS ABOUT THE AUTHORS ERIC MERKLEY Eric Merkley (PhD, UBC) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Toronto. He was the lead survey analyst of the Media Ecosystem Observatory, which studied the Canadian information ecosystem and public opinion during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Digital Democracy Project, which studied misinformation and public attitudes during the 2019 Canadian federal election. His research focuses on the link between political elite behaviour, the news media, and public opinion.
    [Show full text]
  • Handbook of Research on Deception, Fake News, and Misinformation Online
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Strathclyde Institutional Repository Handbook of Research on Deception, Fake News, and Misinformation Online Innocent E. Chiluwa Covenant University, Nigeria Sergei A. Samoilenko George Mason University, USA A volume in the Advances in Media, Entertainment, and the Arts (AMEA) Book Series Published in the United States of America by IGI Global Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global) 701 E. Chocolate Avenue Hershey PA, USA 17033 Tel: 717-533-8845 Fax: 717-533-8661 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.igi-global.com Copyright © 2019 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher. Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Chiluwa, Innocent, editor. | Samoilenko, Sergei A., 1976- editor. Title: Handbook of research on deception, fake news, and misinformation online / Innocent E. Chiluwa and Sergei A. Samoilenko, editors. Description: Hershey, PA : Information Science Reference, 2019. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2018055436| ISBN 9781522585350 (hardcover) | ISBN 9781522585374 (ebook) | ISBN 9781522585367 (softcover) Subjects: LCSH: Fake news. | Deception. | Misinformation. | Social media. Classification: LCC PN4784.F27 H365 2019 | DDC 302.23/1--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018055436 This book is published in the IGI Global book series Advances in Media, Entertainment, and the Arts (AMEA) (ISSN: 2475-6814; eISSN: 2475-6830) British Cataloguing in Publication Data A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.
    [Show full text]
  • Religion and Fake News: Faith-Based Alternative Information Ecosystems in the U.S. and Europe
    Religion and Fake News: Faith-based Alternative Information Ecosystems in the U.S. and Europe Christopher Douglas | 6 January 2018 Summary he intersection of fake news and religion is marked by three asymmetries. First, fake news circulates more among Americans than Europeans. Second, fake news circulates T among conservatives more than liberals. Third, fake news for conservatives often feature religious themes. The origin of the fake news information-entertainment ecosystem lies largely in Christian fundamentalism’s cultivation of counter-expertise. The intersection of fake news and religion today is being exploited by Russia to subvert Western democracies and deepen social divisions. Western countries need to strengthen mainstream evidence-based journalism, incorporate conservative religious leaders into mainstream discussions, and detach high religiosity from fake news information ecosystems. Page 1 About the Report This report was commissioned by the Cambridge Institute on Religion & International Studies (CIRIS) on behalf of the Transatlantic Policy Network on Religion and Diplomacy (TPNRD). About the TPNRD The TPNRD is a forum of diplomats from North America and Europe who collaborate on religion-related foreign policy issues. Launched in 2015, the network is co-chaired by officials from the European External Action Service and the U.S. Department of State. About CIRIS CIRIS is a multi-disciplinary research centre at Clare College, Cambridge. CIRIS’s role as the Secretariat of the TPNRD is generously supported by the Henry Luce Foundation’s initiative on religion in international affairs. For further information about CIRIS, visit ciris.org.uk. About the Author Christopher Douglas teaches American literature and religion at the University of Victoria, Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Infodemic and Misinformation in the Fight Against COVID-19
    Understanding the infodemic and misinformation in the fight against COVID-19 |DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION TOOLKIT KNOWLEDGE TOOLS 9 COVID-19 Factsheet Digital Health Understanding the Infodemic and Misinformation in the fight against COVID-19 IMPORTANT NOTE: Stay informed with timely information on the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), available on the PAHO and WHO websites and through your national and local public health authorities What is the Infodemic? As stated by the WHO, the COVID-19 outbreak and response has been accompanied by a massive infodemic: an overabundance of information – some accurate and some not – that makes it hard for people to find trustworthy sources and Access to the right reliable guidance when they need it. Infodemic refers to a large increase in the volume of information associated with a information, at the specific topic and whose growth can occur exponentially in a right time, in the right short period of time due to a specific incident, such as the format IS CRITICAL! current pandemic. In this situation, misinformation and rumors appear on the scene, along with manipulation of information with doubtful intent. In the information age, this phenomenon is amplified through social networks, spreading farther and faster like a virus.1 What is Misinformation? Misinformation is false or inaccurate information deliberately intended to deceive. In the context of the current pandemic, it can greatly affect all aspects of life, especifically people’s mental health, since searching for 361,000,000 videos were uploaded on COVID-19 updates on the Internet has YouTube in the last 30 days under the “COVID-19” jumped 50% – 70% across all and “COVID 19” classification, and about 19,200 generations.
    [Show full text]
  • The Politicization and Polarization of Climate Change
    Claremont Colleges Scholarship @ Claremont CMC Senior Theses CMC Student Scholarship 2021 The Politicization and Polarization of Climate Change Williamson Grassle Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses Part of the American Politics Commons, Environmental Law Commons, Environmental Studies Commons, and the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation Grassle, Williamson, "The Politicization and Polarization of Climate Change" (2021). CMC Senior Theses. 2663. https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/2663 This Open Access Senior Thesis is brought to you by Scholarship@Claremont. It has been accepted for inclusion in this collection by an authorized administrator. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Claremont McKenna College The Politicization and Polarization of Climate Change Submitted to Professor John J. Pitney, Jr. By Williamson Grassle For Senior Thesis Spring 2021 May 3rd 1 Table of Contents TITLE……………………………………………………………………………………..1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………………….3 ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………4 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………...5 CHAPTER 1 – LATE 20TH, EARLY 21ST CENTURY………………………………....12 CHAPTER 2 – RECENT………………………………………………………………...24 CHAPTER 3 – FUTURE………………………………………………………………...39 WORK CITED…………………………………………………………………………...52 2 Acknowledgements I would like to thank Professor John J. Pitney for his guidance and support on this thesis. Throughout my time at Claremont McKenna, you have helped foster my passion for politics and define my interest in environmental policy. Without your guidance and expertise, I would not have been able to complete this project. 3 Abstract In the mid to late 20th-century, climate change and other environmental issues were addressed on a bipartisan basis, with Republican politicians like President Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush supporting and advancing measures to combat climate change. However, since the 1990s, climate change has become increasingly polarized, with significant polarization in the last decade.
    [Show full text]
  • Misinformation
    Psychological Science in the Public Interest Misinformation and Its Correction: 13(3) 106 –131 © The Author(s) 2012 Reprints and permission: Continued Influence and sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1529100612451018 Successful Debiasing http://pspi.sagepub.com Stephan Lewandowsky1, Ullrich K. H. Ecker1, Colleen M. Seifert2, Norbert Schwarz2, and John Cook1,3 1University of Western Australia, 2University of Michigan, and 3University of Queensland Summary The widespread prevalence and persistence of misinformation in contemporary societies, such as the false belief that there is a link between childhood vaccinations and autism, is a matter of public concern. For example, the myths surrounding vaccinations, which prompted some parents to withhold immunization from their children, have led to a marked increase in vaccine-preventable disease, as well as unnecessary public expenditure on research and public-information campaigns aimed at rectifying the situation. We first examine the mechanisms by which such misinformation is disseminated in society, both inadvertently and purposely. Misinformation can originate from rumors but also from works of fiction, governments and politicians, and vested interests. Moreover, changes in the media landscape, including the arrival of the Internet, have fundamentally influenced the ways in which information is communicated and misinformation is spread. We next move to misinformation at the level of the individual, and review the cognitive factors that often render misinformation resistant to correction. We consider how people assess the truth of statements and what makes people believe certain things but not others. We look at people’s memory for misinformation and answer the questions of why retractions of misinformation are so ineffective in memory updating and why efforts to retract misinformation can even backfire and, ironically, increase misbelief.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding and Countering Climate Science Denial
    Journal & Proceedings of the Royal Society of New South Wales, vol. 150, part 2, 2017, pp. 207–219. ISSN 0035-9173/17/020207-13 Understanding and countering climate science denial John Cook Center for Climate Change Communication, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA Email: [email protected] Abstract Science denial causes a range of damaging impacts on society. This is particularly the case with climate science denial, which has resulted in strong polarization around a non-controversial scientific issue, and prolific dissemination of climate misinformation. This in turn has had the effect of reducing public acceptance of climate change, and eroding support for policies to mitigate climate change. In order to develop effective responses to science denial, it is necessary to first understand the drivers of science denial, which leads to deeper understanding of the techniques employed to cast doubt on the reality of climate change. Analysis of denialist techniques can inform development of interventions that neutralize misinformation. Inoculation has been shown to be an effective way to preemptively reduce the influence of climate science denial. Two methods to practically implement inoculation are misconception-based learning (teaching science by addressing scientific misconceptions) and techno- cognition (an interdisciplinary approach that implements psychological principles in the design of technological solutions to misinformation). Interventions and procedures developed for the counter- ing of climate misinformation may also be applied to other scientific topics rife with misinformation, such as vaccination and evolution. Introduction damaging and significant impacts of misin- here is an overwhelming scientific con- formation. In 2014, the World Economic T sensus that humans are causing global Forum named online misinformation as one warming.
    [Show full text]
  • Report WHY IS YOUTUBE BROADCASTING CLIMATE MISINFORMATION to MILLIONS?
    Why is YouTube Broadcasting Climate Misinformation to Millions? YouTube is driving its users to climate misinformation and the world’s most trusted brands are paying for it. 15/01/2020 - Avaaz Report WHY IS YOUTUBE BROADCASTING CLIMATE MISINFORMATION TO MILLIONS? YouTube is driving its users to climate misinformation and the world’s most trusted brands are paying for it. 15/01/2020 “Climate change is one of the most significant global “There is no evidence that CO2 emissions are challenges of our time, and continued greenhouse gas the dominant factor [in climate change].” emissions pose an existential threat to humanity.” Richard Lindzen in Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say? -A video being promoted by YouTube’s algorithm with 1.9 million views Google 2019 Environmental Report Contents Executive Summary 8 I. How YouTube Promotes Climate Misinformation 14 • The instrumental role of the algorithm 16 II. Climate Misinformation Videos on YouTube & the Global Brands Advertising on Them 20 Recommendations for YouTube to Act Immediately 40 • Detox YouTube’s Algorithm 43 • Correct the Record 45 Recommendations for Companies 46 Annexes 50 • Annex 1: Methodology for Part I 50 • Annex 2: Methodology for Part II 52 • Annex 3: Table - Climate Misinformation Videos Analyzed for Part II 53 • Annex 4: Full List of Brands Found by Avaaz on Climate Misinformation Videos 54 • Annex 5: Further Examples of Advertisements Running on Climate Misinformation Videos 56 • Glossary 62 • Acknowledgment: The Necessity of Having a Fact-Based Discussion on Climate Change while also Defending Freedom of Expression 64 6 7 Executive Summary Climate misinformation threatens the health and safety of our societies and our planet.
    [Show full text]