Negacionismo climático e desinformação online: uma revisão de escopo

Autores

  • Rose Marie Santini Escola de Comunicação, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0657-7217
  • Carlos Eduardo Barros Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciência da Informação, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Instituto Brasileiro de Informação em Ciência e Tecnologia, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4947-4157

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18617/liinc.v18i1.5948

Palavras-chave:

negacionismo, mudanças climáticas, Ciência, desinformação, redes sociais

Resumo

Esforços de síntese de evidências vêm apontando para o avanço das formas organizadas de desinformação e negação do conhecimento científico sobre a mudança climática global. Em vários países do mundo, há um forte debate sobre a difusão dessas narrativas no ambiente online e seus impactos políticos, sociais e econômicos. Neste trabalho, realizamos uma revisão de escopo aplicada às bases Web of Science e Scopus, a fim de mapear como a literatura acadêmica internacional vem descrevendo as relações entre o negacionismo da ciência sobre mudanças climáticas e o uso de campanhas de desinformação no século XXI, assim como as possíveis lacunas e apontamentos desses estudos para a agenda de pesquisas. Em todos os tipos de mídias estudados nos 31 artigos selecionados, foi identificada uma predominância de discursos contrários ao consenso científico sobre o tema, alavancada por campanhas de desinformação organizadas, inclusive, por atores governamentais. Observamos um crescimento significativo do campo nos últimos anos, assim como transformações estratégicas nas comunicações negacionistas tendendo a uma disputa maior da opinião pública sobre a ciência

Biografia do autor

Rose Marie Santini, Escola de Comunicação, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil

Professor da Escola de Comunicação da UFRJ. Departamento de Métodos e Áreas Conexas. Professora do Programa de Pós-graduação em Ciência da Informação do convênio IBICT/ECO-UFRJ. Linha de pesquisa 1: Comunicação, Organização e Gestão da Informação e do Conhecimento

Referências

ABALKINA, A. Guest Post - unethical practices in research and publishing: evidence from Russia. The Scholarly Kitchen, 04 de fevereiro de 2021. Disponível em: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2021/02/04/guest-post-unethical-practices-in-research-and-publishing-evidence-from-russia/

ALLGAIER, Joachim. Science and environmental communication on YouTube: strategically distorted communications in online videos on climate change and climate engineering. Frontiers in Communication, p. 36, 2019.

ALLEN, David E.; MCALEER, Michael. Fake news and indifference to scientific fact: President Trump’s confused tweets on global warming, climate change and weather. Scientometrics, v. 117, n. 1, p. 625-629, 2018.

ANDEREGG, William RL et al. Expert credibility in climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 107, n. 27, p. 12107-12109, 2010.

ARAÚJO, C. Post-Truth as a New Object of Information Science. Journal of National Studies on Librarianship and Information Organization, 32 (1), Spring 2021: 16-30.

ARKSEY, H., & O’MALLEY, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616

AVAAZ, 2020. Porque o Youtube está compartilhando desinformação sobre mudanças climáticas para milhões de pessoas? Disponível em: https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/po/youtube_climate_misinformation/

BANERJEE, J. et al, 2015. Exxon: the road not taken. Inside Climate News. Disponível em: https://insideclimatenews.org/book/exxon-the-road-not-taken/

BENNETT, W. Lance; LIVINGSTON, Steven, 2018. The disinformation order: Disruptive communication and the decline of democratic institutions. European journal of communication, v. 33, n. 2, p. 122-139, 2018.

BOUSSALIS, Constantine; COAN, Travis G. Text-mining the signals of climate change doubt. Global Environmental Change, v. 36, p. 89-100, 2016.

BOYKOFF, Maxwell T.; ROBERTS, J. Timmons, 2007. Media Coverage of Climate Change: Current Trends, Strengths, Weakness. Human Development Report 2007/2008, n. 3, p. 1-53.

BRADSHAW, Samantha; HOWARD, Philip N., 2018. Online Supplement to Working Paper 2018.1 Challenging Truth and Trust: A Global Inventory of Organized Social Media Manipulation. 2018.

BRADSHAW, Samantha; HOWARD, Philip N., 2019. The global disinformation order: 2019 global inventory of organised social media manipulation. 2019.

BRANNON, Lawrence et al. The Potential of Interactivity and Gamification Within Immersive Journalism & Interactive Documentary (I-Docs) to Explore Climate Change Literacy and Inoculate Against Misinformation. Journalism Practice, p. 1-31, 2021.

BROERSMA, Marcel; GRAHAM, Todd., 2013. Twitter as a news source: How Dutch and British newspapers used tweets in their news coverage, 2007–2011. Journalism practice, v. 7, n. 4, p. 446-464, 2013.

BRÜGGEMANN, Michael et al. Mutual group polarization in the blogosphere: Tracking the hoax discourse on climate change. International Journal of Communication, v. 14, p. 24, 2020.

BODMER, Walter Fred et al. The public understanding of science. London: Birkbeck College, 1986.

BOURDIEU, Pierre. Usos sociais da ciência. Unesp, 2003.

BOURDIEU, Pierre. Homo academicus. Stanford University Press, 1988.

BUSTAMANTE, M. 2019. Climate change and biodiversity: Challenges for Brazil. Reunião Magna, Academia Brasileira de Ciências, maio de 2019, Rio de Janeiro. Disponível em: http://www.abc.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/M_BUSTAMANTE.pdf

CAPSTICK, Stuart et al, 2015. International trends in public perceptions of climate change over the past quarter century. WIREs Clim Change, 6:35-61. DOI: 10.1002/wcc321.

CAPURRO, Rafael; HJORLAND, Birger. O conceito de informação. Perspectivas em ciência da informação, v. 12, n. 1, p. 148-207, 2007.

CASERINI, Stefano et al. Evaluating the scientific credentials of the supporters of public petitions denying anthropogenic climate change. Tellus A: Dynamic Meteorology and Oceanography, v. 73, n. 1, p. 1-4, 2021.

CEYHAN, Gaye D.; SARIBAS, Deniz, 2021. "Research trends on climate communication in the post-truth era." Educational and Developmental Psychologist: 1-12.

DE COCK BUNING, Madeleine. A multi-dimensional approach to disinformation: Report of the independent High level Group on fake news and online disinformation. Publications Office of the European Union, 2018.

COOK, John et al, 2013. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literatura. Environmental research letters, v. 8, n. 2, p. 024024.

COOK, John; LEWANDOWSKY, Stephan; ECKER, Ullrich KH. Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: Exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence. PloS one, v. 12, n. 5, p. e0175799, 2017.

DAUDT, H. M.; VAN MOSSEL, C., & SCOTT, S. J. (2013). Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13(1). doi:10.1186/1471-2288-13-48

VAN ECK, C. W.; FEINDT, P. H. Parallel routes from Copenhagen to Paris: climate discourse in climate sceptic and climate activist blogs. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, p. 1-16, 2021.

ELSE, H.; VAN NOORDEN, R. The fight against fake-paper factories that churn out sham science. Nature, 23 de março de 2021. Disponível em: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00733-5#ref-CR6

ERVITI, M. Carmen; CODINA, Mónica; LEÓN, Bienvenido. Pro-science, anti-science and neutral science in online videos on climate change, vaccines and nanotechnology. Media and Communication, v. 8, n. 2, p. 329-338, 2020.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION, 2021. Disinformation: new actions from online platforms and extension of the monitoring programme. 03 de dezembro de 2021. Disponível em: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/disinformation-new-actions-online-platforms-and-extension-monitoring-programme

FALLIS, D., 2015. What Is Disinformation? Library Trends, 63(3), 401–426. doi:10.1353/lib.2015.0014

FREELON, D.; WELLS, C. (2020). Disinformation as Political Communication. Political Communication, 1–12. doi:10.1080/10584609.2020.17237

GAO, Jian et al. Potentially long-lasting effects of the pandemic on scientists. Nature communications, v. 12, n. 1, p. 1-6, 2021.

GRECH, Victor. Fake news and post-truth pronouncements in general and in early human development. Early human development, v. 115, p. 118-120, 2017.

VAN GREEN, D. et al, 2019. Climate change: the networks of #climatechange hasthag engagement & “climate emergency” image circulation. #SMARTdatasprint, Cross-Platform Digital Networks Project, Inovamedialab. Disponível em: https://smart.inovamedialab.org/editions/2020-digital-methods/project-reports/cross-platform-digital-networks/climate-change/

GUILBEAULT, Douglas; BECKER, Joshua; CENTOLA, Damon. Social learning and partisan bias in the interpretation of climate trends. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 115, n. 39, p. 9714-9719, 2018.

HAMELEERS, Michael; VAN DER MEER, Toni GLA. The Scientists Have Betrayed Us! The Effects of Anti-Science Communication on Negative Perceptions Toward the Scientific Community. International Journal of Communication, v. 15, p. 25, 2021.

HANSSON, Sven Ove. Social constructionism and climate science denial. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, v. 10, n. 3, p. 1-27, 2020.

HARTLEY, Kris; VU, Minh Khuong. Fighting fake news in the COVID-19 era: policy insights from an equilibrium model. Policy Sciences, v. 53, n. 4, p. 735-758, 2020.

HARRIS, Jenine K. et al. Tweeting for and against public health policy: response to the Chicago Department of Public Health's electronic cigarette Twitter campaign. Journal of medical Internet research, v. 16, n. 10, p. e3622, 2014.

HEIMSTADT, M. Between fast science and fake news: Preprint servers are political. LSE vlog, 3 de abril de 2020. Disponível em: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/04/03/between-fast-science-and-fake-news-preprint-servers-are-political/

HEYD, Thomas. Covid-19 and climate change in the times of the Anthropocene. The Anthropocene Review, v. 8, n. 1, p. 21-36, 2021.

HJORLAND, B. (2007). Information: Objective or subjective/situational? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(10), 1448–1456. doi:10.1002/asi.20620

HORNSEY, Matthew J. et al, 2016. Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nature climate change 6.6 (2016): 622-626.

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC), 2018. Global Warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)].

INTERNET MATTERS TEAM, 2020. Stopping the spread of fake news on popular online platforms. Internet Matters.org. 16 de novembro de 2020.

ISSBERNER, Liz-Rejane; LÉNA, Philippe (Ed.). Brazil in the anthropocene: conflicts between predatory development and environmental policies. Taylor & Francis, 2016.

JAQUES, Cecilia; ISLAR, Mine; LORD, Gavin. Post-Truth: Hegemony on social media and implications for sustainability communication. Sustainability, v. 11, n. 7, p. 2120, 2019.

JANG, S. Mo; HART, P. Sol. Polarized frames on “climate change” and “global warming” across countries and states: Evidence from Twitter big data. Global Environmental Change, v. 32, p. 11-17, 2015.

KAHAN, Dan M.; JENKINS‐SMITH, Hank; BRAMAN, Donald, 2011. Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of risk research, v. 14, n. 2, p. 147-174.

KAISER, Jonas; PUSCHMANN, Cornelius. Alliance of antagonism: Counterpublics and polarization in online climate change communication. Communication and the Public, v. 2, n. 4, p. 371-387, 2017.

KARLOVA, Natascha A.; LEE, Jin Ha. Notes from the underground city of disinformation: A conceptual investigation. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, v. 48, n. 1, p. 1-9, 2011.

KIM, Annice E. et al. Methodological considerations in analyzing Twitter data. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, v. 2013, n. 47, p. 140-146, 2013.

KLENERT, David et al. Five lessons from COVID-19 for advancing climate change mitigation. Environmental and Resource Economics, v. 76, n. 4, p. 751-778, 2020.

KRAFFT, P. M.; DONOVAN, Joan, 2020. Disinformation by design: The use of evidence collages and platform filtering in a media manipulation campaign. Political Communication, v. 37, n. 2, p. 194-214.

LATOUR, Bruno. Onde aterrar?: como se orientar politicamente no antropoceno. Bazar do Tempo Produções e Empreendimentos Culturais LTDA, 2020.

LATOUR, Bruno. Is this a Dress Rehearsal? Chicago Journals, 26 de março de 2020. Disponível em: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/711428

LEMOS, André Luiz Martins; BITENCOURT, Elias Cunha; DOS SANTOS, João Guilherme Bastos. Fake news as fake politics: the digital materialities of YouTube misinformation videos about Brazilian oil spill catastrophe. Media, Culture & Society, v. 43, n. 5, p. 886-905, 2021.

LEVAC, D., COLQUHOUN, H., & O’BRIEN, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5(1). doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-69

LEWANDOWSKY, Stephan; OBERAUER, Klaus; GIGNAC, Gilles E. NASA faked the moon landing—therefore,(climate) science is a hoax: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science. Psychological science, v. 24, n. 5, p. 622-633, 2013.

LEWANDOWSKY, Stephan et al. Science by social media: Attitudes towards climate change are mediated by perceived social consensus. Memory & cognition, v. 47, n. 8, p. 1445-1456, 2019.

LEWANDOWSKY, Stephan, 2021. Liberty and the pursuit of science denial. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, v. 42, p. 65-69, 2021.

LUTZKE, Lauren et al. Priming critical thinking: Simple interventions limit the influence of fake news about climate change on Facebook. Global Environmental Change, v. 58, p. 101964, 2019.

MALLAPATY, S. China bans cash rewards for publishing papers. Nature, 28 de fevereiro de 2020. Disponível em: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00574-8

MARLOW, Thomas; MILLER, Sean; ROBERTS, J. Timmons. Bots and online climate discourses: Twitter discourse on President Trump’s announcement of US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. Climate Policy, v. 21, n. 6, p. 765-777, 2021.

MASSARANI, L. et al, 2019. O que os jovens brasileiros pensam da ciência e da tecnologia? Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia em Comunicação Pública da Ciência e Tecnologia. Disponível em: http://www.coc.fiocruz.br/images/PDF/Resumo%20executivo%20survey%20jovens_FINAL.pdf

MASSARANI, L. et al, 2021. O que os jovens brasileiros pensam da ciência e da tecnologia? Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia em Comunicação Pública da Ciência e Tecnologia. Disponível em: https://www.inct-cpct.ufpa.br/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/LIVRO_final_web_2pag.pdf

MCCARTNEY, Kevin D.; GRAY, Garry. Big Oil U: Canadian Media Coverage of Corporate Obstructionism and Institutional Corruption at the University of Calgary. The Canadian Journal of Sociology/Cahiers canadiens de sociologie, v. 43, n. 4, p. 299-324, 2018.

MCKINLEY, Jim; ROSE, Heath. Standards of English in academic writing: The authors respond. Journal of Second Language Writing, v. 44, p. 114-116, 2019.

MERKLEY, Eric; STECULA, Dominik A., 2018. Party Elites or Manufactured Doubt? The Informational Context of Climate Change Polarization. Science Communication, 40(2), 258–274. doi:10.1177/1075547018760334

MEYER, T.; ALAPHILIPPE, A.; PERSHAN, C., 2021. The good, the bad and the ugly: how platforms are prioritizing some EU member states in their Covid-19 disinformation responses. 28 de abril de 2021. Disponível em: https://www.disinfo.eu/publications/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-how-platforms-are-prioritising-some-eu-member-states-in-their-covid-19-disinformation-responses/

MUNN, Zachary et al. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC medical research methodology, v. 18, n. 1, p. 1-7, 2018.

MUZYKANT, Valerii; MUQSITH, Munadhil A. Media educational approach to climate change news agenda in russia. Медиаобразование, v. 60, n. 1, p. 166-177, 2020.

NGUYEN, An; CATALAN, Daniel. Digital mis/disinformation and public engagment with health and science controversies: Fresh perspectives from Covid-19. Media and Communication, v. 8, n. 2, p. 323-328, 2020.

NICHOLLS, James. Everyday, everywhere: alcohol marketing and social media-current trends. Alcohol and alcoholism, v. 47, n. 4, p. 486-493, 2012.

NUNZIATO, Dawn Carla. The marketplace of ideas online. Notre Dame L. Rev., v. 94, p. 1519, 2018.

O'CALLAGHAN-GORDO, Cristina; ANTÓ, Josep M. COVID-19: The disease of the Anthropocene. Environmental Research, v. 187, p. 109683, 2020.

OLIVEIRA, T. M. Midiatização da ciência: reconfiguração do paradigma da comunicação científica e do trabalho acadêmico na era digital. MATRIZes, v. 12, n. 3, 2018.

OLIVEIRA, Thaiane Moreira de et al. Antivacina, fosfoetanolamina e Mineral Miracle Solution (MMS): mapeamento de fake sciences ligadas à saúde no Facebook. 2020.

OLIVEIRA, T. M., 2020. "Como enfrentar a desinformação científica? Desafios sociais, políticos e jurídicos intensificados no contexto da pandemia." Liinc em Revista 16.2 (2020): e5374-e5374.

ORESKES, Naomi; CONWAY, Erik M. Defeating the merchants of doubt. Nature, v. 465, n. 7299, p. 686-687, 2010.

OWENS, B., 2022. Social-media platforms failing to tackle abuse of scientists. Nature, 28 de janeiro de 2022. Disponível em: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00207-2

PARISER, Eli. The filter bubble: How the new personalized web is changing what we read and how we think. Penguin, 2011.

PETERSEN, Alexander Michael; VINCENT, Emmanuel M.; WESTERLING, Anthony LeRoy. Discrepancy in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists and contrarians. Nature communications, v. 10, n. 1, p. 1-14, 2019.

PINGREE, Raymond J. et al. Restoring trust in truth-seekers: Effects of op/eds defending journalism and justice. PloS one, v. 16, n. 5, p. e0251284, 2021.

POBEREZHSKAYA, Marianna. Blogging about climate change in Russia: Activism, skepticism and conspiracies. Environmental Communication, v. 12, n. 7, p. 942-955, 2018.

POWELL, James, 2019. Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 2017;37(4):183-184. doi:10.1177/0270467619886266

PROCTOR, Robert N.; SCHIEBINGER, Londa. Agnotology: The making and unmaking of ignorance. 2008.

RAJÃO, Raoni et al. The risk of fake controversies for Brazilian environmental policies. Biological Conservation, v. 266, p. 109447, 2022.

RIBISL, Kurt M.; JO, Catherine. Tobacco control is losing ground in the Web 2.0 era: invited commentary. Tobacco Control, v. 21, n. 2, p. 145-146, 2012.

RIVAS, Virgilio A. To return or not to return: on post-Anthropocene and the pandemic. Journal of Public Health (Oxford, England), 2021.

ROGERS, R., 2020. Deplatforming: Following extreme Internet celebrities to Telegram and alternative social media. European Journal of Communication. 2020;35(3):213-229. doi:10.1177/0267323120922066

RUSSELL, Adrienne; TEGELBERG, Matthew. Beyond the boundaries of science: Resistance to misinformation by scientist citizens. Journalism, v. 21, n. 3, p. 327-344, 2020.

SANTINI, RM, TUCCI, G, SALLES, D, et al. (2021) Do You Believe in Fake after All? WhatsApp Disinformation Campaign during the Brazilian 2018 Presidential Election. In: Politics of Disinformation. Wiley.

SANTINI, RM, SALLES D, REGATTIERI, L, et al. (2022a) There’s no smoke without fire: comparing legacy media coverage and junk news narratives on the Amazon fire season in Brazil. In: Environmental Jorunalism in the Global South. Palgrave Studies in Journalism and the Global South. Palgrave Macmilan. (No prelo)

SANTINI, RM, SALLES D, BARROS, CE (2022b) We Love to hate George Soros: a cross-platform analysis of Globalism conspiracy theory campaigns in Brazil. Convergence (No prelo)

SANTINI, RM, SALLES D, REGATTIERI, L, BARROS, CE (2022c). Computational Propaganda Effects. In: Andrea Ceron (org). Encyclopedia of Technology & Politics. Cheltenham (UK): Edward Elgar Publishing LTD (No prelo)

SCIENCE & ENGINEERING INDICATORS, 2018. Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding. Disponível em: https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/report/sections/science-and-technology-public-attitudes-and-understanding/introduction

SENADO FEDERAL, 2020. Projeto de Lei nº 2630, de 2020 (Lei das Fake News). Disponível em: https://www25.senado.leg.br/web/atividade/materias/-/materia/141944

SKYRMS, Brian. Signals: Evolution, learning, and information. OUP Oxford, 2010.

SPRING, M., 2020. Social media firms fail to act on Covid-19 fake news. BBC, 04 de junho de 2020. Disponível em: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52903680

STRUDWICKE, Indigo J.; GRANT, Will J. # JunkScience: Investigating pseudoscience disinformation in the Russian Internet Research Agency tweets. Public Understanding of Science, v. 29, n. 5, p. 459-472, 2020.

STONE, R. A shady market in scientific papers mars Iran’s rise in science. Science, 14 de setembro de 2016. Disponível em: https://www.science.org/content/article/shady-market-scientific-papers-mars-iran-s-rise-science

TADDICKEN, Monika; WOLFF, Laura. ‘Fake News’ in Science Communication: Emotions and Strategies of Coping with Dissonance Online. Media and Communication, v. 8, n. 1, p. 206-217, 2020.

TEIXEIRA DA SILVA, J. A. The preprint wars. AME Med J., v. 2, p. 74, 2017.

THALER, Andrew David; SHIFFMAN, David. Fish tales: Combating fake science in popular media. Ocean & Coastal Management, v. 115, p. 88-91, 2015.

TINGLEY, Dustin; WAGNER, Gernot. Solar geoengineering and the chemtrails conspiracy on social media. Palgrave Communications, v. 3, n. 1, p. 1-7, 2017.

VAN DER LINDEN, Sander; ROOZENBEEK, Jon; COMPTON, Josh. Inoculating against fake news about COVID-19. Frontiers in psychology, v. 11, p. 2928, 2020.

VENTURINI, Tommaso. From Fake to Junk News, the Data Politics of Online Virality, 2020. In D. Bigo, E. Isin, & E. Ruppert (Eds.), Data Politics: Worlds, Subjects, Rights. London: Routledge, 2020.

VRIEZE, J. Bruno Latour, a veteran of the ‘science wars’, has a new mission. Science, 10 de outubro de 2017. Disponível em: https://www.science.org/content/article/bruno-latour-veteran-science-wars-has-new-mission

WALLACE-WELLS, David, 2019. The uninhabitable earth. Columbia University Press.

WARDLE, Claire; DERAKHSHAN, Hossein. Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policymaking. 2017.

WATTS, Duncan J., 2004. Six degrees: The science of a connected age. WW Norton & Company, 2004.

WILSON, Tom; STARBIRD, Kate., 2020. Cross-platform disinformation campaigns: lessons learned and next steps. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, v. 1, n. 1, 2020.

ZHU, Junwen; LIU, Weishu. A tale of two databases: The use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers. Scientometrics, v. 123, n. 1, p. 321-335, 2020.

Downloads

Publicado

20/05/2022

Como citar

Santini, R. M., & Barros, C. E. (2022). Negacionismo climático e desinformação online: uma revisão de escopo. Liinc Em Revista, 18(1), e5948. https://doi.org/10.18617/liinc.v18i1.5948

Edição

Seção

Desafios das Ciências sociais no Antropoceno