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.