↓ Skip to main content

Internet Blogs, Polar Bears, and Climate-Change Denial by Proxy

Overview of attention for article published in BioScience, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#8 of 3,018)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
221 Mendeley
Title
Internet Blogs, Polar Bears, and Climate-Change Denial by Proxy
Published in
BioScience, November 2017
DOI 10.1093/biosci/bix133
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeffrey A Harvey, Daphne van den Berg, Jacintha Ellers, Remko Kampen, Thomas W Crowther, Peter Roessingh, Bart Verheggen, Rascha J M Nuijten, Eric Post, Stephan Lewandowsky, Ian Stirling, Meena Balgopal, Steven C Amstrup, Michael E Mann

Abstract

Increasing surface temperatures, Arctic sea-ice loss, and other evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are acknowledged by every major scientific organization in the world. However, there is a wide gap between this broad scientific consensus and public opinion. Internet blogs have strongly contributed to this consensus gap by fomenting misunderstandings of AGW causes and consequences. Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) have become a "poster species" for AGW, making them a target of those denying AGW evidence. Here, focusing on Arctic sea ice and polar bears, we show that blogs that deny or downplay AGW disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability. By denying the impacts of AGW on polar bears, bloggers aim to cast doubt on other established ecological consequences of AGW, aggravating the consensus gap. To counter misinformation and reduce this gap, scientists should directly engage the public in the media and blogosphere.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 1,002 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 221 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 221 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 53 24%
Student > Master 30 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 12%
Researcher 18 8%
Other 13 6%
Other 30 14%
Unknown 51 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 50 23%
Environmental Science 35 16%
Social Sciences 19 9%
Engineering 8 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 3%
Other 42 19%
Unknown 61 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1075. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 May 2023.
All research outputs
#12,676
of 23,935,525 outputs
Outputs from BioScience
#8
of 3,018 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#232
of 444,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioScience
#2
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,935,525 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,018 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 444,098 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.