https://www.cell.com/iscience/fulltext/S2589-0042(23)00243-2
*Authors* - Ramit Debnath <https://www.cell.com/iscience/fulltext/S2589-0042%2823%2900243-2?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS2589004223002432%3Fshowall%3Dtrue#> <[email protected]> - David M. Reiner <https://www.cell.com/iscience/fulltext/S2589-0042%2823%2900243-2?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS2589004223002432%3Fshowall%3Dtrue#> - Benjamin K. Sovacool <https://www.cell.com/iscience/fulltext/S2589-0042%2823%2900243-2?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS2589004223002432%3Fshowall%3Dtrue#> - - Tim Repke <https://www.cell.com/iscience/fulltext/S2589-0042%2823%2900243-2?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS2589004223002432%3Fshowall%3Dtrue#> - R. Michael Alvarez <https://www.cell.com/iscience/fulltext/S2589-0042%2823%2900243-2?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS2589004223002432%3Fshowall%3Dtrue#> - Shaun D. Fitzgerald <https://www.cell.com/iscience/fulltext/S2589-0042%2823%2900243-2?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS2589004223002432%3Fshowall%3Dtrue#> - - *28 February 2023* - *https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2023.106166 <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2023.106166>* Highlights - •Social media users react to new climate technologies like solar geoengineering (SG) - •Deep learning and natural language processing measured online discourse's toxicity - •Conspiracy theories like chemtrails affect online public negativity related to SG - •SG conspiracies use UK, US, India, and Sweden geopolitics Summary Geoengineering techniques such as solar radiation management (SRM) could be part of a future technology portfolio to limit global temperature change. However, there is public opposition to research and deployment of SRM technologies. We use 814,924 English-language tweets containing #geoengineering globally over 13 years (2009–2021) to explore public emotions, perceptions, and attitudes toward SRM using natural language processing, deep learning, and network analysis. We find that specific conspiracy theories influence public reactions toward geoengineering, especially regarding “chemtrails” (whereby airplanes allegedly spray poison or modify weather through contrails). Furthermore, conspiracies tend to spillover, shaping regional debates in the UK, USA, India, and Sweden and connecting with broader political considerations. We also find that positive emotions rise on both the global and country scales following events related to SRM governance, and negative and neutral emotions increase following SRM projects and announcements of experiments. Finally, we also find that online toxicity shapes the breadth of spillover effects, further influencing anti-SRM views. Graphical abstract [image: Figure thumbnail fx1] [image: Figure thumbnail gr1] Figure 1Online emotions to #geoengineering [image: Figure thumbnail gr2] Figure 2A chatter plot demonstrating the spatial distribution of Twitter engagement on #geoengineering and its semantic structure based on three time periods [image: Figure thumbnail gr3] Figure 3Word embeddings and online toxicity *Web Article*: https://phys.org/news/2023-02-social-media-solar-geoengineering-conspiracy.html -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAHJsh9-29PwXq%3DCS5uEPFvkcTrQ827MuEy8iGyePELDq_dw4EQ%40mail.gmail.com.
