https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-017-0014-3
Palgrave Communications <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-017-0014-3#search-menu> <https://idp.nature.com/authorize/natureuser?client_id=grover&redirect_uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Farticles%2Fs41599-017-0014-3> Solar geoengineering and the chemtrails conspiracy on social media Close menu Close menuClose menu Close menu Article | OPEN Solar geoengineering and the chemtrails conspiracy on social media - Dustin Tingley <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-017-0014-3#auth-1> & - Gernot Wagner <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-017-0014-3#auth-2> - *Palgrave Communications* 3, Article number: 12(2017) - doi:10.1057/s41599-017-0014-3 - Download Citation <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-017-0014-3.ris> - - Environmental studies <https://www.nature.com/subjects/environmental-studies> - Politics and international relations <https://www.nature.com/subjects/politics-and-international-relations> Received:11 August 2017Accepted:25 September 2017Published online:31 October 2017 Abstract Discourse on social media of solar geoengineering has been rapidly increasing over the past decade, in line with increased attention by the scientific community and low but increasing awareness among the general public. The topic has also found increased attention online. But unlike scientific discourse, a majority of online discussion focuses on the so-called chemtrails conspiracy theory, the widely debunked idea that airplanes are spraying a toxic mix of chemicals through contrails, with supposed goals ranging from weather to mind control. This paper presents the results of a nationally representative 1000-subject poll part of the 36,000-subject 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES), and an analysis of the universe of social media mentions of geoengineering. The former shows ~ 10% of Americans declaring the chemtrails conspiracy as “completely” and a further ~ 20–30% as “somewhat” true, with no apparent difference by party affiliation or strength of partisanship. Conspiratorial views have accounted for ~ 60% of geoengineering discourse on social media over the past decade. Of that, Twitter has accounted for >90%, compared to ~ 75% of total geoengineering mentions. Further affinity analysis reveals a broad online community of conspiracy. Anonymity of social media appears to help its spread, so does the general ease of spreading unverified or outright false information. Online behavior has important real-world reverberations, with implications for climate science communication and policy. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
