The bad news is that you still find pockets of irrational, agenda-laden perspectives about climate change in policy, media, and social media platforms. These are often rooted in ideology, special interest influences, or misinformation. Climate change is a cross-cutting topic that impacts national security, water policy, energy policy, food security, infrastructure, and public health. As I previously wrote in Forbes, these connections make climate change a national emergency. However, the good news is that there is bipartisan action on climate change now. The Climate Solutions Caucus is a great example. If you dig beneath the rhetoric and "noise," a clear signal is starting to emerge that policymakers on both sides of the aisle are increasingly proactive on climate change. A recent New York Times article explored how some Republicans are now citing climate change as a driver of their policies. Policymakers in many conservative-leaning states have also signaled a shift as they "tiptoe" (in the words of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution) toward the conclusion that climate change is real. An interesting Twitter thread caught my eye this morning. Robert Rohde, lead scientist for Berkeley Earth, posed the question: How many members of the U.S. Congress follow climate scientists on Twitter? Here is what he found.
Rohde is a very interesting scientist to follow on Twitter and always has some interesting perspective on climate-related discussions. I asked him why he decided to conduct this ad-hoc analysis. He told me in a message:
Whether it is @AOC or @realDonaldTrump, we all know that Twitter is an increasingly powerful method of political communication, but do politicians also use Twitter to learn about important issues? I was curious if Members of Congress (or their staffs) were using Twitter as a way of listening directly to the messages and warnings that climate scientists have been sharing.
First, let's begin with the answer to the question Rohde posted. The answer is 47. Rohde's methodology was relatively simple. He started with a list of over 2300 climate scientists on Twitter compiled by Katharine Hayhoe. Hayhoe, a professor at Texas Tech, is an outstanding scientist and climate communicator. According to Rohde's Twitter thread,
Every single member of Congress has at least one Twitter account. Many have more than one (e.g. government account, "personal" account, campaign account, etc.)....For simplicity, I only looked at one account per member of Congress (hopefully the one with the most followers)....This gives 538 Congressional Twitter accounts to compare with the @KHayhoe's list of scientists.
Here is a synthesis of his main findings along with hyperlinks to the Tweets naming the scientists:
- Of the 47 members of Congress (8.7%) that follow climate scientists, the breakdown by chamber: Senate: 10 Democrats, 1 Republican. House: 34 Democrats, 2 Republican
- 26 members of Congress follow more than 1 climate scientist.
- The members of Congress are following 103 different climate scientists (I was honored to be one of them). The start of the Twitter thread of those being followed can be found at this link.
Of those climate scientists, several are followed by multiple members of Congress.
Rohde was surprised to find that many members of Congress that are vocal and active supporters of climate action do not follow any climate scientists on Twitter. The thread revealing those names begins with this link. He sums up his assessment with the following Tweet:
Of course, Members of Congress have access to many excellent sources of information, and if they aren't listening to climate scientists on Twitter, then hopefully they are still learning about climate change in other ways as they go about their important work.
Overall, I am not sure what can be drawn from Rohde's analysis, but I did find it fascinating. One conclusion that I might draw is that some members of Congress may not see Twitter as their "go to" source for information on climate science. As such, we probably should be careful about judging their perspectives on climate change based on whether they follow climate scientists or not. However, Rohde's analysis does provide an opportunity for members of Congress (or their staffers) to gain access to credible climate scientists easily. Hayhoe's list is a good start.
I want to close with a bit of insight on Berkeley Earth, Rohde's organization. There website says:
Berkeley Earth was conceived by Richard and Elizabeth Muller in early 2010 when they found merit in some of the concerns of skeptics. They organized a group of scientists to reanalyze the Earth’s surface temperature record, and published their initial findings in 2012. Berkeley Earth became an independent non-profit 501(c)(3) in February 2013.
While the organization began out of skeptical origins, their analysis and scientists have become credible and compelling voices for science and action related to climate change. Their website goes on to say, "We believe that now it is our responsibility to communicate our findings, in particular with prominent stakeholders familiar with the reasons for global warming skepticism that Berkeley Earth addressed." I often cite this organization as an example of how science should work rather than being anchored down in the weight of ideology and bias.
