Men deny more than they believe about climate change on Twitter (X)

long list of countries. This would add complexity in model that would create distraction and distortion in the interpretation of the results of the existing multinomial egression being used and hence, using the location data is beyond the scope of this study. Conclusion and future research The paper presents a useful multinomial model that can be used to assess the probability of dif- ferences in groups holding an opinion on the social media data like Twitter (now known as X). A silver lining of the analysis is that all the groups are serious about climate change gas emis- sion. However, there is difference in the opinions among the groups with a significant varia- tion across the two gender categories of the two groups. The findings are useful for policy makers and climate change activists as it reveals the sceptical stance of men that means use of awareness and communication materials targeted to sensitize and improve understanding of men about the climate change to meet the global target of achieving net zero. From the limita- tion discussed above, using the location data, future research may focus on country or region specific variations that scholars can use to generate useful insights about the variables shaping climate change discussion on twitter. Adding to the recent studies discussed in the result sec- tion, the other vital question that researchers may further explore why do men take skeptical stance on climate change belief in various regions and countries? Additionally, based on the

discussion on moderating effect by scholars, it is important to understand what are the vari- ables that moderate the gendered discussion about climate change? This will help developing a broader understanding whether the finding is true only for Twitter social media or do we have any variation in the statement based on location, social media platform or population not using social media in real world. Author Contributions Conceptualization: Mudit Kumar Singh. Formal analysis: Mudit Kumar Singh. Writing – original draft: Mudit Kumar Singh. Writing – review & editing: Mudit Kumar Singh. References 1. Williams HT, McMurray JR, Kurz T, Lambert FH. Network analysis reveals open forums and echo chambers in social media discussions of climate change. Global Environmental Change. 2015; 32:126– 138. 2. Murthy D. (2012). Towards a sociological understanding of social media: Theorizing Twitter. Sociology, 46(6), 1059–1073. 3. Dellmuth L., & Shyrokykh K. (2023). Climate change on Twitter: Implications for climate governance research. WIREs Climate Change, 14(6), e848. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.848 4. Aramaki E, Maskawa S, Morita M. Twitter catches the flu: detecting influenza epidemics using Twitter. In: Proceedings of the conference on empirical methods in natural language processing. Association for Computational Linguistics; 2011. p. 1568–1576. 5. Effrosynidis D, Sylaios G, Arampatzis A (2023) Correction: Exploring climate change on Twitter using seven aspects: Stance, sentiment, aggressiveness, temperature, gender, topics, and disasters. PLoS

ONE 18(10): e0293151. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293151 PMID: 37824514 6. Seddighi H.; Salmani I.; Seddighi S. Saving Lives and Changing Minds with Twitter in Disasters and Pandemics: A Literature Review. Journal. Media 2020, 1, 59–77. https://doi.org/10.3390/ journalmedia1010005 7. Ripberger JT, Jenkins-Smith HC, Silva CL, Carlson DE, Henderson M. Social Media and Severe Weather: Do Tweets Provide a Valid Indicator of Public Attention to Severe Weather Risk Communica- tion? Weather, Climate, and Society. 2014; 6(4):520–530. PLOS ONE Men deny climate change on Twitter PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303007 February 13, 2025 7 / 9