SynthesisOpen research Europe2024
Disinformation as an obstructionist strategy in climate change mitigation: a review of the scientific literature for a systemic understanding of the phenomenon.
Synthesis in Open research Europe, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study examines the scientific misinformation about climate change, in particular obstructionist strategies. The study aims to understand their impact on public perception and climate policy and emphasises the need for a systemic understanding that includes the financial, economic and political roots. Methods: A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted using the PRISMA 2020 model. The sample consisted of 75 articles published between 2019 and 2023, sourced from Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar. Methodological triangulation was performed to improve the analysis. Results: The results show that technological approaches to misinformation detection, such as immunisation and fact-checking, are widely used. However, few studies look in depth at the operational structures that support systematic disinformation. Conclusions: The study emphasises the urgent need to expand and deepen research on climate disinformation and argues for more global, comparative and adequately funded studies. It emphasises the importance of addressing the systemic complexity of disinformation and integrating different theoretical and methodological approaches. This will help to develop effective measures against hidden networks of influence and mitigate their disruptive effects. The research findings are relevant for policymakers, scientists, academics, the media and the public and will help to improve strategies to combat climate misinformation and promote science-based climate action.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.