Bots and online climate discourses: Twitter discourse on President Trump’s announcement of U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement
Abstract
In the early days of social media, social scientists speculated that it could support democracy because large media conglomerates could not dominate it. Regarding climate change, research documents the influence of the fossil fuel industry in climate denial discourses in the traditional media. Therefore, a similar hope emerged that a more democratized platform would see less polarization in belief about climate change's scientific basis. However, online public opinion about climate change continues to be extremely polarized, and the social forces behind it are not well understood. Here, we examine the role of one proposed mechanism for the systemic polarization and spread of disinformation in online discourses - the automated social media bot. This article pioneers the use of bot detection software on climate change discussion on Twitter, using automated monitoring of 6.8 million tweets. We examine the period around the time of U.S. President Donald Trump's announcement of U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on June 1, 2017. We find that the announcement generated an immediate online social movement response with very low suspected bot presence. Prior to and afterwards, however, suspected bots were responsible for approximately 25% of original tweets. Additionally, we find that suspected bots were more frequent in some topic areas than others, including denialist discourses focused on research questioning the reality or importance of climate change.Key policy insights On an average day during our study period, automated bots produced an estimated one-quarter of all original tweets referencing climate change and global warming.Bots were more active in some discussion areas than others - including climate denialist messages.President Trump's announcement of the U.S.'s planned withdrawal from the Paris Agreement generated an immediate online social movement response with very low suspected bot presence.For social media to deliver on its promise of a decentralized and democratic forum, automated accounts need to be identified, marginalized, and removed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Anonymity online permits the spread of low-quality information with minimal social cost and provides cover for bots brute-forcing a message onto a network.
“Anonymity online similarly permits the spread of low-quality information with minimal social cost and provides cover for bots brute-forcing a message onto a network”
From Stewardship of global collective behavior (2021) · cites this paper as [110]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 32 · Cited by 64
- Authors
- Marlow, T., Miller, S., & Roberts, J. T.
- Affiliations
- New York University Abu Dhabi (AE)
- Providence, United States
- Brown University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Marlow, Thomas
- Venue
- Climate Policy
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2021-01-15
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 765-777
- ISSN
- 1469-3062 (ISSN-L)
- 1752-7457
- OpenAlex
- W3120382881
- Cited by
- 64
- References
- 32
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 14.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Climate Policy (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Brown University Data Science Initiative
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Climate Change Communication and Perception
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Keywords
- social bots, bot detection, climate change denial, Paris Agreement withdrawal, Donald Trump, Twitter, online polarization, disinformation, climate change discourse, social movements, fossil fuel industry influence, automated accounts
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review