Clouding climate science: A comparative network and text analysis of consensus and anti-consensus scientists.

There is a clear consensus among climate scientists about the reality and serious consequences of anthropogenic climate change. However, a vocal minority challenges this consensus. While some research has drawn attention to how conservative foundations support these anti-consensus scientists, less is known about how these scholars are embedded within the broader scientific community. Here, we analyze the networks of anti-consensus and consensus scientists and observe the extent to which these groups are maintained through peer collaborations (e.g. co-authorship) or substantive focus (e.g. research specialization). Using bibliometric data, we construct co-authorship and bibliographic networks linking scientists that appear in two key reports representing the consensus and anti-consensus positions. We identify specialty areas using text analysis and model participation in either series of reports. Results indicate that anti-consensus scientists are not in the same network as consensus scientists and have somewhat different research specializations than consensus scientists although there is substantive overlap. Additionally, anti-consensus scientists do not form a coherent network among themselves, which suggests they do not constitute a separate scientific community, but rather are composed of a disparate group of idiosyncratic scientists. • Clear consensus exists among climate scientists about anthropogenic climate change, yet a small minority is anti-consensus. • Consensus and anti-consensus scientists differ by collaboration and somewhat by specialization, among other factors. • Consensus scientists form a community, while anti-consensus scientists have few ties to consensus scientists or each other. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]