The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Social Media, Science, and Attack Discourse: How Twitter Discussions of Climate Change Use Sarcasm and Incivility
Abstract
Conflict in online discussions of science has the potential to polarize individuals’ perceptions of science, yet science communication scholarship has paid little attention to systematic study of how verbal attacks play out in online discussions of science. This study analyzes sarcasm and incivility in Twitter discussions of climate change during an extreme weather event ( n = 4,094). We found instances of incivility and sarcasm were low overall. Incivility was used in association with political topics, and both incivility and sarcasm were used alongside skeptical perspectives of climate change and by those who mention right-leaning politics in their profiles.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Kata, A. (2012) · Vaccine · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.11.112 · Cited by 1,094 · cited 1×
“Other examples point to the possibility of social media to foster skeptical viewpoints on other scientific topics, such as vaccines (e.g., Kata, 2012).”
BackgroundClimate change on Twitter: Content, media ecology and information sharing behaviour
Veltri, G. A., & Atanasova, D. (2017) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662515613702 · Cited by 217
Cited by
The social media life of climate change: Platforms, publics, and future imaginaries
Pearce, W., Niederer, S., Özkula, S. M., & Sánchez Querubín, N. (2019) · WIREs Climate Change · doi:10.1002/wcc.569 · Cited by 334
(2023) · Climate Change 2021 – The Physical Science Basis · doi:10.1017/9781009157896.003 · Cited by 298
Fostering public trust in science: The role of social media
Huber, B., Barnidge, M., Gil de Zúñiga, H., & Liu, J. (2019) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662519869097 · Cited by 231
Hot weather, hot topic. Polarization and sceptical framing in the climate debate on Twitter
Moernaut, R., Mast, J., Temmerman, M., & Broersma, M. (2022) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2020.1834600 · Cited by 65
The Platformization of Violence: Toward a Concept of Discursive Toxicity on Social Media
Recuero, R. (2024) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/20563051231224264 · Cited by 47
Metadata
- Authors
- Anderson, A. A., & Huntington, H. E.
- Venue
- Science Communication
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2017-10
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 598-620
- ISSN
- 0164-0259 (ISSN-L)
- 1075-5470
- 1552-8545
- OpenAlex
- W2763642544
- Cited by
- 190
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 33.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Social Media, Science, and Attack Discourse: How Twitter Discussions of Climate Change Use Sarcasm and Incivility. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1075547017735113
- The paper
- Anderson, A. A., & Huntington, H. E. (2017). Social Media, Science, and Attack Discourse: How Twitter Discussions of Climate Change Use Sarcasm and Incivility. Science Communication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017735113
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
