Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Network structure and influence of the climate change counter-movement


Anthropogenic climate change represents a global threat to human well-being1,2,3 and ecosystem functioning4. Yet despite its importance for science and policy, our understanding of the causes of widespread uncertainty and doubt found among the general public remains limited. The political and social processes driving such doubt and uncertainty are difficult to rigorously analyse, and research has tended to focus on the individual-level, rather than the larger institutions and social networks that produce and disseminate contrarian information. This study presents a new approach by using network science to uncover the institutional and corporate structure of the climate change counter-movement, and machine-learning text analysis to show its influence in the news media and bureaucratic politics. The data include a new social network of all known organizations and individuals promoting contrarian viewpoints, as well as the entirety of all written and verbal texts about climate change from 1993–2013 from every organization, three major news outlets, all US presidents, and every occurrence on the floor of the US Congress. Using network and computational text analysis, I find that the organizational power within the contrarian network, and the magnitude of semantic similarity, are both predicted by ties to elite corporate benefactors.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type



Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Bipartite graph of the climate contrarian network.
Figure 2: One-mode organizational structure of the climate contrarian network.
Figure 3: Growth in semantic similarity with contrarian network discourse.


  1. Hsiang, S. M., Burke, M. & Miguel, E. Quantifying the influence of climate on human conflict. Science 341, 1235367 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kennett, D. J. et al. Development and disintegration of Maya political systems in response to climate change. Science 338, 788–791 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Thomas, C. D. et al. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427, 145–148 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. IPCC Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects (eds Barros, V. R. et al.) 1133–1731 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Leiserowitz, A. et al. Climate Change in the American Mind: April 2014 (Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, 2014);

    Google Scholar 

  6. McCright, A. M. & Dunlap, R. E. Defeating Kyoto: The conservative movements impact on U. S. Climate Change Policy. Soc. Probl. 50, 348–373 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Oreskes, N. & Conway, E. M. Merchants of Doubt (Bloomsbury, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Brulle, R. J. Institutionalizing delay: Foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations. Climatic Change 122, 681–694 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Akerlof, K., Rowan, K. E., Fitzgerald, D. & Cedeno, A. Y. Communication of Climate Projections in US media amid politicization of model science. Nature Clim. Change 2, 648–654 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ding, D., Maibach, E. W., Zhao, X., Roser-Renouf, C. & Leiserowitz, A. Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement. Nature Clim. Change 1, 462–466 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hart, P. S. & Nisbet, E. C. Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity Cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Commun. Res. 39, 701–723 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E. W., Roser-Renouf, C., Smith, N. & Dawson, E. Climategate, public opinion, and the loss of trust. Am. Behav. Sci. 57, 818–837 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Evans, J. H. & Feng, J. Conservative Protestantism and skepticism of scientists studying climate change. Climatic Change 121, 595–608 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Shove, E. Beyond the ABC: Climate change policy and theories of social change. Environ. Plan. 42, 1273–1285 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Maniates, M. Individualization: Plant a tree, buy a bike, save the World? Glob. Environ. Polit. 1, 31–52 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. King, G., Pan, J. & Roberts, M. E. Reverse-engineering censorship in China: Randomized experimentation and participant observation. Science 345, 1251722 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lazer, D. et al. Computational social science. Science 323, 721–723 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Watts, D. J. A twenty-first century science. Nature 445, 489 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. King, G. Ensuring the data-rich future of the social sciences. Science 331, 719–721 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Boykoff, M. T. & Boykoff, J. M. Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press. Glob. Environ. Change 14, 125–136 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Wild, F. lsa: Latent Semantic Analysis. R package version .073 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2014);

    Google Scholar 

  22. Easley, D. & Kleinberg, J. Networks, Crowds, and Markets: Reasoning About a Highly Connected World (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2010).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  23. Walker, E. T. Privatizing participation: Civic change and the organizational dynamics of grassroots lobbying firms. Am. Sociol. Rev. 74, 83–105 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Morris, M. & Western, B. Inequality in earnings at the close of the twentieth century. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 25, 623–657 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kristal, T. Good times, bad times: Postwar labors share of national income in capitalist democracies. Am. Sociol. Rev. 75, 729–763 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Gewin, V. Funding: Flirting with disaster. Nature 498, 527–528 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Morello, L. More cuts loom for US science. Nature 501, 147–148 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Edwards, S. A. Science and the billionaire philanthropists. Capitol Connection (6 May 2013);

Download references


I want to thank Yale University, the Stanford University Center for Computational Social Science, and several conversation partners, including J. Bayham, R. Dunlap, R. Brulle, B. Stewart, J. Wilkerson, R. Wuthnow, M. Evans and K. Beyerlein. This research was partially supported by an EPA STAR graduate fellowship.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Justin Farrell.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Farrell, J. Network structure and influence of the climate change counter-movement. Nature Clim Change 6, 370–374 (2016).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing