ArticleScientific reports2025
Relative engagement with sources of climate misinformation is growing across social media platforms.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psychological understanding of misinformation and disinformation in the face of environmental crises: Introduction to the special issue.British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We explore the discourse on climate change across multiple social media platforms, examining the evolution of user engagement with climate-related content and whether this content links to reliable or unreliable news media sources. Through a detailed examination of over 20 million posts on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube over five years (2018-2022), we identify trends in engagement, distinguishing between unreliable and reliable content to assess the impact of misinformation. Further, we investigate the relationships among various discussion topics and their association with information quality, employing a network-based method to quantify the semantic distances between these categories. Our findings reveal diverse trends in engagement that align with global events, suggesting that social media discussions promptly reflect the resonance of real life events concerning climate change such as COP26, the Climate Action Week and climate strikes associated with the Fridays for Future movement. Notably, despite the lower volume of content linking to unreliable sources, we observe significantly greater relative engagement with these sources compared to content from reliable sources on all platforms except Twitter. This highlights a persistent challenge in the online discourse surrounding climate misinformation.
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.