Echo chambers in climate science

Abstract

To date, echo chambers in American climate politics have been found to focus on the climate-related policy instrument that is under review. In this paper, we explore how echo chambers change over time, integrating data collected on the federal climate policy network after the first 100 days of the Trump Administration had passed with data collected during two periods during the Obama Administration. We employ Exponential Random Graph (ERG) models to test for the similarity and differences over time in the top policy actors working on the issue during each time period. We then compare the newer findings from 2017 to previous work on data from 2010 and 2016. We find that echo chambers continue to play a significant role in the network of information exchange among policy elites and in the adoption of new information sources over time. In contrast to previous findings, however, where echo chambers centered on specific policy instruments-a binding international commitment to emission reductions or the Obama Administration's Clean Power Plan -opinion regarding whether or not climate change is caused by humans (i.e. is anthropogenic) has become the central organizing force behind echo chambers in the US climate policy network. These results provide new empirical evidence that ideological polarization drives the selection of expert information in the debate around climate politics. Moreover, our results show how misinformation diffuses among political elites working on the issue of climate change.Political polarization continues to be a challenge to environmental policymaking in the United States [1,2]. Even with the overwhelming consensus by scientists that the climate is changing due, in part, to human activity [3,4], public opinion about climate change has been found to be strongly associated with political ideology [5][6][7]. In recent months, however, concern about the issue has grown [8]. Research has found that 'climate denial'challenges to the overwhelming scientific consensus around climate change-has been effectively utilized by the so-called climate countermovement as a means to block political progress [2, 9-11, see also 12]. In particular, this research has focused on the diffusion of disinformation to the public by organizations that received corporate funding.At the same time, scholars have taken advantage of innovations in computational social science to provide insights into 'exactly how connections among people create societal trends' [2,[13][14][15]. Employing computational research methods, this paper looks at how climate denial has become a central organizing force in climate politics under the Trump Administration. In contrast to the research on the climate countermovement, this study looks at information diffusion among policy actors engaged in climate decisionmaking in the US. Building on research that finds echo chambers-patterns of similarity regarding where policy actors get their expert information-in American climate politics [16, see also 17 for an example from Ireland] and that these echo ...

Nature conservation in a digitalized world: echo chambers and filter bubbles

“…Inconsistencies regarding the use of both terms can also be found in the identified scientific literature. Definitions of the two terms can be found in all sources of categories A and B, except for Paulo (2018), Jasny and Fisher (2019), as well as Titeca and Edmond (2019), which do not explain what is generally understood by the term echo chamber. In contrast, the term filter bubble is defined in all category A and B sources in which it occurs.…”

“…It is particularly aggravating for nature conservation work when mis-or disinformation influences the public discourse on nature conservation topics (Metson 2018, Paulo 2018, Colston and Thomas 2019. This is underlined, for example, by Jasny and Fisher (2019), who address changes in existing echo chambers of the U.S.-climate-policy-network after Donald Trump became President. The thematic focus of the political echo chambers shifted to the question of whether climate change is humaninduced or not, a consequence of the opinions and policies expressed by Trump on climate change (Jasny and Fisher 2019).…”

“…This is underlined, for example, by Jasny and Fisher (2019), who address changes in existing echo chambers of the U.S.-climate-policy-network after Donald Trump became President. The thematic focus of the political echo chambers shifted to the question of whether climate change is humaninduced or not, a consequence of the opinions and policies expressed by Trump on climate change (Jasny and Fisher 2019). This change in thematic focus forced nature conservation to react accordingly, e.g., with climate science information campaigns (Jasny and Fisher 2019), illustrating how the affliction of other societal groups by echo chambers can have an indirect impact on nature conservation work.…”

Using policy network analysis to understand ideological convergence and change in educational subsystems

“…Consequently, local policy domains with active charter school networks were characterized by information-redundancy and the prevalence of "echo chambers" (Goldie, Linick, Jabbar, & Lubienski, 2014). Echo chambers refer to the tendency of organizations to selectively reference the same sources of information to guide decision-making and are a feature of ideologically homogenous policy networks (e.g., Jasny & Fisher, 2019) Finally, intermediary organizations acted as policy forums, in which actors engage in information transmission (e.g., mediating local information channels, coordinating knowledge sharing, disseminating reports), as well as myriad political activities to extend their influence (Fisher & Leifeld, 2015). Organizations, for example, lobbied politicians, advocated for the network to promote specific programs (e.g., charter management organizations) and advertised their work to boost their status within the network.…”

Cascades across networks are sufficient for the formation of echo chambers: An agent-based model

“…The enclosing nature of echo chambers has been shown to induce intolerance towards opposing views 11 and quantitative analyses suggest that echo chambers may contribute to the spread of misinformation 1,12 . Corroborating these findings, recent empirical research has shown that echo chambers lead to a misleading of public and political discourse, such as disbelief in climate change 13,14 . Investigating how echo chambers emerge on social media thus offers an important opportunity for understanding and potentially counteracting the occurrence of digital misinformation.…”