Trust, tribalism and tweets: has political polarization made science a “wedge issue”?

Abstract

Background: Political polarization remains a major obstacle to national action on global climate change in the United States Congress, and acceptance of anthropogenic drivers strongly differs between Republicans and Democrats. But has overall interest in science also become ingrained into partisan identity, even among national political figures tasked with making ostensibly science-based policy decisions? Social media outlets such as Twitter have become a popular means of exchanging information and of portraying a carefully crafted public image. We analyzed the 78,753 unique Twitter accounts followed by U.S. senators to gauge their interests as well as the public images that their offices project to the public. In particular, we examined correlations between follows of science-related accounts and recent votes on a series of amendments defining the "sense of the Senate" on global climate change (GCC). Drawing from these social networks, we discuss how political polarization is strongly linked with the role that science -and climate science in particular -plays in the political process. Results: Our analyses show that Twitter social networks reflect political affiliation and polarization, with Senate Republicans and Democrats belonging to distinct and semi-isolated sub-networks. Notably, while follows of science-related organizations were low overall, these sub-networks were characterized by very different levels of interest in science, with Senate Democrats three times more likely to follow science-related Twitter handles than Republicans. This suggests that overt interest in science may partly define party identity. Hence, instead of being viewed as a neutral source of objective information, science may now be considered a special interest in U.S. politics. Notably, however, Republican senators who crossed party lines to vote "yea" on an amendment associated with the Keystone Pipeline bill stating that humans contribute to GCC are more similar to Democrats in their science follows than they are to their fellow Republicans. Conclusions: Our results strongly suggest that overt interest in science may now primarily be a "Democrat" value. However, opportunities exist to inject scientific information into political discussion by targeting key individuals and organizations connected to both sides of the aisle.

Shifting perceptions of rapid temperature changes’ effects on marine fisheries, 1945–2017

“…The rate of recent warming is also highly anomalous in the global record back to 1900 (Pershing et al, 2015), with the number of "surprisingly" hot years increasing faster than expected (Pershing et al, 2019). Scientific consensus does not mean public support, and political polarization around climate change persists in the United States (Hamilton, 2011;Helmuth, Gouhier, Scyphers, & Mocarski, 2016 However, while modern observations were also mixed in terms of willingness to attribute warming to climate change, articles citing climate change were generally written in a more authoritative, confirmatory tone than those from the past (Table 2). Scientific consensus does not mean public support, and political polarization around climate change persists in the United States (Hamilton, 2011;Helmuth, Gouhier, Scyphers, & Mocarski, 2016 However, while modern observations were also mixed in terms of willingness to attribute warming to climate change, articles citing climate change were generally written in a more authoritative, confirmatory tone than those from the past (Table 2).…”

“…The effects of warming on fisheries are also more clearly understood today, with a range of severe negative consequences commonly attributed to global warming, including hurricanes (Emanuel, 2005) and disease (Burge et al, 2014;Khasnis & Nettleman, 2005). Scientific consensus does not mean public support, and political polarization around climate change persists in the United States (Hamilton, 2011;Helmuth, Gouhier, Scyphers, & Mocarski, 2016). Moreover, studies have shown that while personal experiences with temperature anomalies can influence perceptions of local or regional weather trends, they do not generally trigger major shifts in beliefs related to global climate change (McCright, Dunlap, & Xiao, 2014).…”

Emergent dynamics of extremes in a population driven by common information sources and new social media algorithms

“…The impacts of division within a society are widespread, affecting the stories and narratives that individuals choose to share 3,4 , their political affiliations and how they vote 5,11 , and even how society views scientific findings, e.g. Darwinian evolution versus intelligent design, and climate change 12 . On issues for which there is no counter-evidence, a surprisingly large number of people may still take an ‘anti-crowd’ viewpoint, e.g.…”

Scientists Joking on Social Media: An Empirical Analysis of #overlyhonestmethods

“…Scientists are not seen universally as experts in their field by all segments of the population, and some scientific issues are politically polarized. Specifically, conservatives' trust in science has been steadily declining since at least the 1970s (Gauchat, 2012), and trust in science is increasingly seen as a Democratic value (Helmuth, Gouhier, Scyphers, & Mocarski, 2016). Although much of the academic literature is focused on stagnant or declining scientific literacy as a primary reason for mistrust in science, other explanations for scientific mistrust have been put forth, including the disconnection the public experiences from the creation and propagation of scientific knowledge (Habermas, 1989;Merton, 1973) and the general feeling of cultural and social discontent with contemporary society, which is perceived to be unpredictable and meaningless (Achterberg, de Koster, & van der Waal, 2017).…”