Climate change discourse in the blogosphere: a … · Web viewClimate change is a modern...
Transcript of Climate change discourse in the blogosphere: a … · Web viewClimate change is a modern...
Climate change discourse in the blogosphere: a thematic exploration of online discourse, January—
March, 2012Abby Pond 12706225
MSc, Climate Change Management
Birkbeck College, University of London
September 17, 2012
I certify that the work submitted is my own and that I have duly acknowledged any quotation from the published or unpublished work of other persons.
Signature:
Date: September 17, 2012
Approximate word count: 15,419 (excluding tables, figures, appendices and references)
1
Abstract
There has been much debate recently, in public and academic discourse, about how
climate science and climate change issues are communicated. In this study, online
discourse on climate change issues was examined with blogs as a focus. Thematic,
inductive discourse analysis was undertaken on blog posts by 40 authors between 1
January and 1 March 2012. Ten initial themes were then developed into five
frameworks and common discourses. This study discusses how blogging sits within
greater climate discourse and possible reasons for the themes and discourses that
have emerged, as well as areas for future research.
2
Abstract.............................................................................................................................................. 2
Figures, Tables and Photos.......................................................................................................... 6
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................ 7
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 8
The idea of climate and climate change.............................................................................................8
Online Discourse: Blogs........................................................................................................................... 9
Definition of terms.................................................................................................................................... 9
Aims and Objectives............................................................................................................................... 10
Statement of research question......................................................................................................... 11
What this study addresses..................................................................................................................................12
What this study does not address—Areas for future research..........................................................12
Literature Review......................................................................................................................... 13
World and Discourse.............................................................................................................................. 13
Worldviews............................................................................................................................................................... 13
Values...........................................................................................................................................................................15
Frameworks..............................................................................................................................................................16
Intended and Actual Audiences........................................................................................................................17
Discourse and Purpose..........................................................................................................................18
Motivation and Purpose.......................................................................................................................................18
Prior Text, Prior Discourse.................................................................................................................. 19
Content, Narratives and Themes.....................................................................................................................19
Discourse and Medium.......................................................................................................................... 19
Communication models and Scientific Literacy........................................................................................19
Climate Change Communication......................................................................................................................20
Academic Communication..................................................................................................................................21
Participants and Discourse.................................................................................................................. 22
Decision-making and the role of science......................................................................................................22
Expertise and boundaries...................................................................................................................................23
Roles: Science, Government and Society......................................................................................................24
Methodology Review................................................................................................................... 25
Qualitative Research.............................................................................................................................. 25
Discourse Analysis.................................................................................................................................. 25
3
Coding of Qualitative Data....................................................................................................................26
Assumptions and Limitations............................................................................................................................28
The Researcher........................................................................................................................................ 28
Study Boundaries.................................................................................................................................... 29
Ethical Considerations...........................................................................................................................29
Methods........................................................................................................................................... 30
Data Collection......................................................................................................................................... 30
Demographics used in the study......................................................................................................................30
Selection criteria..................................................................................................................................................... 31
Demographic information...................................................................................................................................32
Setting.......................................................................................................................................................................... 32
People.......................................................................................................................................................................... 33
Events.......................................................................................................................................................................... 34
Processes....................................................................................................................................................................34
Sub-sampling............................................................................................................................................................ 35
Initial Coding............................................................................................................................................. 37
Validity and Reliability.......................................................................................................................... 38
Qualitative Reliability...........................................................................................................................................38
Qualitative Validity................................................................................................................................................39
Results.............................................................................................................................................. 41
Demographics of the authors..............................................................................................................41
Code Development.................................................................................................................................. 42
Coding Application.................................................................................................................................. 42
Code Co-occurrence................................................................................................................................ 42
Chi-Square results................................................................................................................................... 47
Motivation and Purpose.......................................................................................................................................48
Frameworks and Discourses............................................................................................................... 48
Frameworks..............................................................................................................................................................49
Discourses..................................................................................................................................................................49
Discussion....................................................................................................................................... 52
World and Discourse.............................................................................................................................. 52
Worldviews............................................................................................................................................................... 52
Values and Frameworks......................................................................................................................................54
Discourse and Purpose..........................................................................................................................58
Discourse and Medium.......................................................................................................................... 60
4
Sharing, Promotion and Interaction...............................................................................................................60
Communication Models and Education........................................................................................................60
Climate Change Communication......................................................................................................................61
Academic Communications................................................................................................................................62
Discourse and Participants.................................................................................................................. 62
Credibility, Trust and Expertise.......................................................................................................................62
The True Sceptic......................................................................................................................................................63
Secrecy and Censorship.......................................................................................................................................64
Life in the Open........................................................................................................................................................64
Boundaries.................................................................................................................................................................65
Communities.............................................................................................................................................................65
Conclusions.................................................................................................................................... 65
Conclusions.................................................................................................................................... 66
References...................................................................................................................................... 67
Appendix A..................................................................................................................................... 74
Johnstone’s Heuristic—Questions arising from the data................................................83
Discourse and World.............................................................................................................................. 83
Prior Text, Prior Discourse.................................................................................................................. 83
Participants and Discourse.................................................................................................................. 83
Discourse and Medium.......................................................................................................................... 83
Appendix B................................................................................................................................... 109
5
Figures, Tables and Photos
By order of appearance
Introduction
Table 1, Page 11. Research questions and heuristic questions
Methodology Review
Figure 1, Page 27. A screengrab of the Dedoose software main screen
Methods
Table 2, Page 30. Search terms used to find blogs
Table 3, Page 33. Demographic information collected during the study
Table 4, Page 35. Original and revised sample sizes.
Figure 2, Page 36. Developing the initial code through inductive coding methods
Figure 3, Page 36. Screenshot of Dedoose coding process
Figure 4, Page 38. Screenshot of memos in Dedoose
Table 5, Page 39. Validity testing results and actions
Results and Discussion
Figure 5, Page 40. Descriptor breakdown Authors by region by expertise
Table 6, Page 42-43. Thematic code description
Figure 6, Page 44. Code frequency by expertise
Table 7, Page 45. Emerging discourses by co-occurrence of codes
Table 8, Page 46. Chi Square results for code frequency by expertise
Figure 7, Page 47. Relationship amongst themes, discourses and frameworks
Table 9, Page 49-50. Discourses within this study, explained
Figure 8, Page 56. Quotations from each framework
6
Acknowledgements
Thank you to Kezia Barker, Becky Scott and Isobel Tomlinson for their guidance and
suggestions during this process. Extra thanks to Kate Hefferon and Ricky Rood for
enlightening discussions and comments on methodology and social science philosophy.
To the bloggers and Twitter followers who made helpful suggestions, pointed me in the
direction of great resources, and kept me amused throughout, thank you.
Most of all, this is for Brian and Ivy, who sacrificed so much of our time together so that I
could complete this project.
7
Introduction
This study uses discourse analysis, grounded theory and thematic analysis
techniques to study discourse on climate change blogs. The introduction and
literature review discuss concepts and context, as well as current research into
relevant issues. As part of this research and in the spirit of openness, transparency,
and two-way conversation, the researcher created the blog,
www.climatediscourse.wordpress.com.
The idea of climate and climate change
Before studying how people are discussing climate change online, it is important to
examine what possible perceptions of climate and climate change may exist. The
idea of climate is constructed and abstract, with different meanings and associations,
dependent on language, culture, science and society at a given point in time (Hulme
2009d). In a classical scientific sense, it is a series of physical meteorological
observations and scientific knowledge across time, separate from all cultural
contexts, culminating in the now-familiar global mean temperature index (Hulme
2009d; Moser 2010).
However this is a modern, Anglo-Western view of climate; other societies do not
require or make this separation and it may not be linguistically possible—cultural
implications are embedded in the language of climate (Adger et al. 2011). The
cultural aspects of climate have traditionally been ignored by climate science, but
there are growing calls for further inclusion (Wolf & Moser 2011). Sociologists identify
different types of knowledge in this context: scientific knowledge, and cultural or
social knowledge (Collins & Pinch 1993; Gregory & Miller 1998e; von Storch 2009).
Deciding which knowledge to believe and which will eventually be victorious is the
public’s choice; and while the scientific community may believe their form of
knowledge is superior to others, in reality it may not win (Gregory & Miller 1998d; von
Storch 2009).
As one cannot measure global mean temperature with a thermometer there is little
direct impact or measurability of climate change for an individual, town, region or
even a nation in many instances. This lack of direct effect makes climate change less
immediate as a risk or issue (Moser 2010). As well, what makes sense scientifically
8
can be ambiguous and confusing to those outside the scientific community (Brace &
Geoghegan 2010).
The idea of climate, and climate change, is therefore fluid. It has changed, and will
continue to change. And, according to Hulme, by restricting definitions to purely
scientific terminology, it allows for the bending and framing of climate change issues
to meet different ideological and political goals (Hulme 2009c). There is also
ambiguity and confusion between weather and climate, particularly amongst the
general public (Wolf & Moser 2011). The way in which climate science is
communicated is therefore incredibly important to its public acceptance and
understanding. But is understanding and acceptance the goal of climate scientists
who blog? This will be examined as part of this study.
The definitions of climate, and climate change, for the purposes of this study, are the
author’s perspective. During the analysis the definitions of these terms by the
participants will be interpreted from the discourse where possible.
Online Discourse: Blogs
The availability of blogging tools such as WordPress and Blogger allows people with
little technical knowledge to establish and maintain a blog. Establishing the number
of active blogs at any given time is difficult, but one blog search engine, BlogScope,
currently monitors more than 61.96 million blogs (Anonymous 2012a).
Blogs are for the most part text-based, and they are generally considered to be more
similar to conversation than traditional text-based discourse as both author and
readers are able to interact and comment (Herring 2010). While blogs may be
approached as conversations, every blog has differing levels of interaction between
the author and the readers. If an author does not respond to comments, it has been
suggested that a blog is no more conversational than any other written text (Herring
2010; Peterson 2011).
Definition of terms
Discourse: (mass noun) communication, usually through, but not limited to, the
medium of language (Johnstone 2008).
Discourse analysis: The study and interpretation of the knowledge of, and
participation in, discourse (Johnstone 2008).
9
Blog: “a website which contains a series of frequently updated, reverse
chronologically ordered posts on a common web page, usually written by a single
author” (Hookway 2008).
Scientist: A person currently working in scientific research (this can be private or
academic) with post-secondary education in a science field, actively participating in
the peer-review process.
Non-Scientist: A person who is not a scientist, as defined above. This person may
be educated in science fields, or have significant lay knowledge and expertise of a
subject.
Please note that these are not definitions of expertise on a subject. No weight or
authority has been assigned to these categories. Expertise is one of the areas that
will be examined in the discourse analysis.
Aims and Objectives
By examining broader online discourse about climate change, this study hopes to
provide insight into the way discourse reflects values and worldviews. This study
examines how different people, especially those scientists and others writing on
climate change issues, draw boundaries around what is and isn’t climate change and
climate science, with the ultimate goal of this boundary-work contributing to better
methods of education and communication.
10
Statement of research question
Research Questions Heuristic question Category
How are blogs used to dis-cuss and communicate cli-mate change issues?
What, if any, metaphors are used, and how do they resemble metaphors commonly used in envi-ronment, policy, politics, and climate change discourse?
World and Dis-course
What is not said? What silences are noticeable?
World and Dis-course
Whose work is referenced, and whose isn't?
World and Dis-course
Who writes climate change blogs?
What do authors assume about the knowledge level of their audience?
World and Dis-course
What motivates them?
Are the purposes and intentions of the authors discernible, explicitly or implicitly?
Discourse and Purpose
What values, frameworks, and worldviews are com-monly used?
Is ideology present? What values are invoked?
World and Dis-course
What themes are present? Prior text, prior discourse
How are authors using blogs to communicate about climate change is-sues?
How does the medium of blogging shape the discourse?
Discourse and medium
How is writing different (or similar to) other communication types?
Discourse and medium
How planned is the discourse?Discourse and medium
How do bloggers decide credibility, expertise and trustworthiness?
How is grammar used to presuppose ideas and structure?
Prior text, prior discourse
What is institutional, and what is sit-uationally negotiated? How is this unique in the blogosphere?
Participants and discourse
How are authority and expertise identified?
Participants and discourse
What are the norms of politeness?Participants and discourse
How do bloggers draw boundaries with regards to science and society?
What communities are defined by the authors? Are they consistent? How are they defined?
Participants and discourse
What phrases, structures and terms are used to identify with a commu-nity?
Participants and discourse
Table 1. Summary of the research question and sub-questions, within the heuristic of Johnstone (2008).
For the purposes of this study, the research questions have been addressed within a
heuristic for discourse analysis, which will be further explained in the Methods
section. Because the literature review, results and discussion are situated within this
heuristic, the research questions are summarised within the heuristic in Table 1.
11
What this study addresses
This study is an exploration of how individuals are discussing climate change issues
within the blogosphere. It exposes and examines the themes underlying blog
discourse, and frameworks that are used.
What this study does not address—Areas for future research
This is not a study of interaction amongst readers of blogs and their authors; this
interesting area will require additional research. This study does not address the
effectiveness of blogs as a communication tool for climate change issues,
campaigning or lobbying. It is not an examination of linguistics or content.
Large-scale demographic questions about climate bloggers are also not addressed—
this study is not representative of all bloggers, and should be considered in context.
12
Literature Review
Climate change communication has come under criticism and scrutiny in the last
decade. Events such as leaked emails from climate researchers at the University of
East Anglia (Nerlich 2010; Ravetz 2011), errors in the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change’s fourth assessment report (Ravindranath 2010) and more recently
Peter Gleick’s dishonest methods of gathering information from a think tank
(Goldenberg 2012), have highlighted how communication, trust, and expertise are
vital. Yet, traditional communication models are being questioned, their failure to
address the complexities surrounding climate change is hindering understanding and
policy development (M Hulme 2009a; Henderson-Sellers 2010; Moser 2010).
This section examines the available literature on values, frameworks,
communication, scientific discourse, as well as online discourse analysis, and
demonstrates how this study will contribute toward identified gaps in current
research.
World and Discourse
Our world and how we experience it is shaped by our discourse, just as our
discourse is influenced by the world around us and how we perceive it (Johnstone
2008). In this section we will discuss worldviews, values, frameworks and audiences
within the context of this study and current research.
Worldviews
A person’s view of the world explains much about their approach to issues,
particularly science. Worldview, in the context of this study, is the philosophical
perspective a person has of the world, incorporating epistemology and theoretical
perspectives (Cresswell 2009). Worldviews are important to consider in discourse
involving science as they inform both the research and its interpretation by the
reader. Climate change issues and research can be approached from postpostivist
viewpoints, from social constructivist viewpoints, or combinations of both (Corfee-
Morlot et al. 2007).
When we think of “science” we are generally thinking of postpositivism, better known
as the scientific method (Cresswell 2009). The process of scientific research starts
with a hypothesis, which is then tested through the gathering and analysis of
13
observable data. The hypothesis is then accepted or rejected, based on the findings.
The scientific method espouses representativeness, reliability, replication, objectivity,
and falsifiablity as the qualities of good science (Cresswell 2009). There is a distinct
separation of the researcher from what is being studied—the scientist is not part of
the study itself, but an impartial observer. As evidence builds and a hypothesis is
continually supported, theories and natural laws are developed, such as the theory of
evolution and the laws of thermodynamics. The goal of the scientific method is not to
support the theory, but to test it (Cresswell 2009). In this worldview, science
generates positive statements about the world—how the world is—without value
judgements, or normative statements, being applied.
Climate science is multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary, including (but not limited to)
the fields of physics, atmospheric sciences, computer science, meteorology,
oceanography, and biology (Hulme 2009c; Yearley 2009). These fields utilise the
scientific method to produce results, which are then disseminated through peer-
reviewed literature. It has been argued that climate science is a social construction,
however, and consequently knowledge of how it is constructed is as important as the
results it produces (Yearley 2009; Demeritt 2012). The complexity of its construction,
for instance in how climate models are built, or how annual global mean temperature
is calculated, are not often well communicated or understood outside of the scientific
community involved (Yearley 2009).
Social constructivism is another worldview, in which the world is viewed and
interpreted by humans as they engage with it (Cresswell 2009). Past experiences,
history, context and culture influence our interpretations, and need to be considered
in the research (Cresswell 2009). We ascribe subjective meaning to objects and
events. Climate models, which consist of data and attributes gathered through
postpositivist methods, are socially constructed because they are projections of a
future which cannot yet be measured; they make assumptions about the actions of
society and possible outcomes; and they are a synthesis of scientific knowledge and
debate (Yearley 2009; Demeritt 2012). There is also a growing body of what could
be described as climate change science—social, psychological and cultural
perspectives of climate change. Traditionally these social approaches are not viewed
at the same levels of influence, esteem, or expertise as natural sciences in the
climate debate, though arguments have been made for their greater inclusion
14
(Trumbo & Shanahan 2000; Carvalho 2007; Hulme 2009d, 2010; Pidgeon &
Fischhoff 2011). No studies were found that examined whether this dominance was
also the case within the blogosphere.
This study will explore the worldviews present in the discourse and examine any
themes that emerge. Expertise and perceived expertise, as it relates to worldview,
will also be explored. Worldviews are also intertwined with frameworks,
communication models, and decision-making frameworks, which will be discussed
later in this review.
Values
A person’s values are an important consideration when exploring online discourse.
Our values influence our interpretation of information, our perception of issues, and
our decision-making process (Hanselmann & Tanner 2008; Moser 2010). Values
change how we see the world, and the values of the world can change how we see.
Each individual engages at a different level with climate change issues, and their
engagement depends upon their perceptions, values, and understanding (Wolf &
Moser 2011). Engagement is also influenced by climate change communication that
appeals to an individual’s ethics, morality and religion (Wardekker et al. 2009).
Climate change thus becomes a social and moral issue as well as a deeply complex
environmental problem. It is therefore important to consider the role of values in blog
discourse surrounding climate change.
Values can be described and categorised in a number of ways, including economic,
social, personal, religious, moral, and environmental (McGraw & Tetlock 2005;
Hanselmann & Tanner 2008). In this study, values are categorised as sacred or
secular. Sacred values are those which a person holds to be absolute and inviolable,
related to their morality, religion and identity (Tetlock 2003; Atran & Axelrod 2008;
Hanselmann & Tanner 2008). We are thus less likely to make decisions that ask us
to compromise these values, or that we perceive as threatening to these values
(Hanselmann & Tanner 2008). Secular values, for instance economic ones, are much
more likely to be negotiable (Atran & Axelrod 2008).
Morality and religion are polarising issues, particularly in the United States, but also
in many other nations. Through the use of sacred rhetoric, an additional complication
is introduced into the climate change debate. Sacred values, as defined by Tetlock,
15
are “those values that a moral community treats as possessing transcendental
significance that precludes comparisons, trade-offs, or indeed any mingling with
secular values” (p 320, Tetlock 2003). Thus it becomes taboo to challenge the sacred
values of an opposing group, as these core values are tied to the person or group’s
identity and generate moral outrage (Tetlock 2003; Atran & Axelrod 2008). Any issue
framed as secular challenge to a sacred value will therefore create conflict.
Does climate change discourse appeal to sacred values? In the US, some Christian
groups connect action on climate change with their moral responsibility to help the
poor, choosing to frame it as a developmental rather than environmental issue
(Wardekker et al. 2009). Studies of public discourse and linguistic patterns, including
a small section of web pages and blogs, have been done but do not explicitly look at
sacred and personal values (Ereaut & Segnit 2007) No published work could be
found pertaining to online blog communication, climate change, and values.
This study will explore the role values play, if any, in blog discourse on climate
change issues and their relationship to an author’s worldview. These issues are
tightly linked with the frameworks used to communicate information and knowledge
about climate change.
Frameworks
Frameworks are a way of explaining things in a way that highlights certain
information in a more condensed, audience-appropriate and relevant form (Nisbet
2009; Spence & Pidgeon 2010). Different frameworks are often applied in
communication to meet the needs of, and increase the response from, the intended
audience with a particular goal in mind (Gifford & Comeau 2011). Though they are
generally used to persuade or engage audiences with an issue, framing is not to be
confused with “spin” which involves incomplete or false information (Nisbet 2009).
Frames can be used to advocate action or caution and to support or discredit an
issue. How an issue is framed has an important effect on the reception and
acceptance of the message (Hulme 2009a; Nisbet 2009; Spence & Pidgeon 2010;
Bain et al. 2012; Stern 2012).
The framing of climate change issues is currently a hot topic for science
communication research. Particularly at the time of this study, research surrounding
the framing of messages to motivate those who are doubting, sceptical, or unaffected
16
by traditional environmental frameworks is prominent (Hoffman 2011; Bain et al.
2012; Stern 2012). However, there are also concerns being voiced about the effect of
such efforts, in particular the stereotyping of sceptical individuals as a consequence
(Edwards 2012; Phelan 2012; Nielsen-Gammon 2012). For instance, the researcher
noted a large number of individuals whom she follows on Twitter objected to the use
of the word “denier” in Bain et al. (2012).
Climate is currently viewed as a global system and can be framed in any number of
ways to suit the communicator’s needs. Climate change can be framed as a political,
environmental, developmental, moral, and spiritual issue (Carvalho 2007; Moser
2010). This malleability may also foster discord and disagreement (Hulme 2009a;
Hoffman 2011). As well, there is a disconnect between asking climate science, which
produces positive statements as noted earlier, to make normative statements on
whether the results are “good” or “bad” and what should be done about it (Hulme
2009b; Hoffman 2011). If we are indeed asking too much of science to provide us
with these value judgements in an objective way, then the door is opened for others
to interpret the results according to their ideology and worldview.
This study will examine blog discourse for frameworks that may emerge. Due to the
methods used in this study (see Methodology), existing frameworks were not
examined in detail before the study began to minimise the influence of previous work
on the researcher’s interpretation of the data.
Intended and Actual Audiences
An individual’s perceived and actual audiences can shape how they communicate on
their blog (Cenite et al. 2009; Peterson 2011). Statistics such as number of views,
sharing, and subscribers are available through blogging platforms and analytics tools
to inform authors about their audience. Bloggers also gain understanding of their
audience from those who comment actively on their blogs. However, it is difficult to
ascertain the effects of a post on those readers who do not actively engage. Further
research is required in this area, but is beyond the scope of this current work.
How does one frame an argument when the potential audience is the entire world?
Recent work on climate change has suggested that messages encouraging action
should be clear and targeted toward a specific audience (Ockwell et al. 2009; Moser
2010). Others argue that too much detail is causing unnecessary confusion and a
17
central, simplified message might be the way forward, though this method would
require greater public trust in climate science than currently exists (Lemonick 2012).
A blogger’s intended audience is related to their larger online community and
connections, as well as their professional connections and their geographical location
(Takhteyev et al. 2012). But how are those networks created? And what is the
relationship with their values? It is difficult to determine the entire audience of a blog,
unless one has access to analytics data, if it exists. These statistics may reveal how
many times a post has been viewed, but do not relate detailed information about the
reader. Those who comment on blogs are obviously readers, but not all readers may
comment. Direct solicitation of blog readers by the author, via online survey, would
be one way to examine audiences further; however this is beyond the scope of this
study.
Not all climate bloggers are advocating for action, but may instead urge caution, call
for more open scientific practices, and question the ethics of both the science and the
scientists behind it (Hoffman 2011). These blogs have not been excluded from this
study; by including them, it is hoped that valuable insight, themes, frames and
narratives may emerge that transcend differences of opinion.
Discourse and Purpose
Motivation and Purpose
Blogging has been heralded as a new form of participatory journalism, an avenue for
political and civic engagement, an educational tool, and a way to foster community
(Hookway 2008). But what motivates an individual to begin blogging and continue to
do so?
In Technorati’s latest State of the Blogosphere, the majority of bloggers surveyed
stated their primary motivation was “to share my expertise and experiences with
others” (Anonymous 2011). A noteworthy exception were Hobbyist bloggers, whose
primary purpose was to state their opinions on areas that were of particular interest
to them (Anonymous 2011). These general surveys do not provide us with the
detailed motivation behind climate bloggers specifically, and warrants further study.
Motivation is tightly linked to purpose and audience which determines the content of
the blog (Cenite et al. 2009). While studies have examined the blog discourse on a
18
variety of issues, climate change discourse research has largely focused on mass
media and political sources online (Weingart et al. 2000; Macias et al. 2009; Koteyko
et al. 2010; Moser 2010; Gavin & Marshall 2011). To date no studies were found that
have examined the purposes, explicit and implicit, of climate change bloggers and in
particular scientists who blog about climate change. The researcher hoped to
address this through interviews with climate change authors, but this component was
removed from the study due to time constraints. During the study any statements of
motivation and purpose were noted, though this will not provide the same richness as
would the interviews.
Prior Text, Prior Discourse
Content, Narratives and Themes
What do blogs contain? A number of different studies attempt to categorise the
content with a greater focus on personal blogs (Herring & Herring 2007; Cenite et al.
2009; Herring 2010). Because the focus of this study is a particular issue, the blogs
in question are generally non-personal in nature, though they may contain personal
views and ideas.
The language of the blogs within this study is English and it is expected that largely
Western views of climate will be dominant, though the data may show otherwise. In
this way, this study is not representative of all online discourse, or even climate
change discourse on blogs. It would be fascinating to compare and contrast the
differences amongst languages in future research.
Though discourse analysis can and has been used for content analysis and
performing narrative research, this study focuses on the underlying themes of climate
change discourse on blogs. Themes are a representation of patterns in the data that
are identified by the researcher as a way of finding meaning (Miles & Huberman
1994; Boyatzis 1998). This study used an inductive approach to construct themes,
which were used in the coding of the data.
Discourse and Medium
Communication models and Scientific Literacy
The traditional information-deficit model of science education postulates that,
provided with more and better information by scientists and experts, the general
19
public and policymakers will be able to make informed decisions as they will be more
scientifically literate (Hulme 2009a). This linear process leads into technocratic
decision-making models, which are discussed later in this review. The one-way flow
of information has been ineffective in generating public or government action on
climate change, and numerous studies have called for new communications
approaches (Hulme 2009a; Anderegg 2010; Moser 2010).
Dialogue is an approach recommended as an alternative to the information-deficit
model. In this model, the public are not passive recipients of knowledge but instead
actively participate in discussions with scientists (Hulme 2009a; Moser 2010). The
advantage of this direct communication is bypassing the messenger (the mass media
in many cases) and also greater exposure of the general public to information that is
generally locked away behind academic paywalls. However, this direct interaction
has a smaller reach (Hulme 2009a; Moser 2010). This study will explore if and how
blogs are used in dialogue surrounding climate change.
Climate Change Communication
The risks of climate change, particularly in the developed world, may not be
immediately apparent or not yet directly affecting individuals, who then have no
personal experience to motivate action (Lazarus 2008; Wolf et al. 2009; Wolf &
Moser 2011). Climate change is a modern environmental problem that, were it not for
science, would not be perceived by the general public at all (Noble & Bennett 2007).
Climate science may therefore be perceived as the creator of the risk by exposing it
(Gregory & Miller 1998b). Does this view then create animosity toward the science?
Because of its wide-reaching implications, climate change is also confused with other
environmental problems (Hulme 2009a; Wolf & Moser 2011). Confusion leads to
belief in incorrect solutions, ineffective policy and leaves people feeling
disempowered (Wolf & Moser 2011). Further evidence of the information-deficit
model failure is the variation in public perception of the scientific consensus on
climate change. Large scale annual surveys consistently find that the public
perception of agreement on climate science is far below the perception amongst
scientists themselves and varies much more than amongst scientists (Weber & Stern
2011; Wolf & Moser 2011). More and better science simply isn’t enough to convince
20
the public as it is only a part of an individual’s decision-making process (Gregory &
Miller 1998c; Hanselmann & Tanner 2008; Hulme 2009b; Adger et al. 2011).
But is this evidence of communication failure or an unrealistic expectation of science
and scientists? Are scientists allowing for these failures, and letting other voices into
the debate? Who is responsible for climate change communication? There are
certainly strong arguments for changing the way climate change is communicated
(Hulme 2009b; Moser 2010; Henderson-Sellers 2010). There have been repeated
calls for scientists to engage with the public directly (Hulme 2009b; Anderegg 2010;
Moser 2010; Fischhoff 2011). The Internet is one way in which scientists may choose
to communicate, and blogs in particular offer a controlled form of discourse by which
they can interact with their peers and the public in an open, yet considered way.
Blogs may be an important tool in communicating and discussing climate change
issues in public, and as such were chosen as a focus for this study.
Previous climate change discourse studies have made communication
recommendations, but blogging was not the main focus of the work and constituted
only a part of the discourse considered (Henderson-Sellers 1998; Weingart et al.
2000; Ereaut & Segnit 2006; 2007). While there have been numerous comment and
opinion pieces calling for greater engagement with the public, very little work has
been done on the role of blogs in this regard (Kouper 2010). This study does not
attempt to discern which communication models “work” in the blogosphere; instead, it
explores how blogs are used to communicate about climate change and the
underlying themes of the discourse.
Academic Communication
Writing for academic publication in peer-reviewed journals requires an author to
adapt the style of “science writing”. Typically, academic papers are written in the third
person, in a very formal manner, such as used in this study. The author uses passive
language to indicate observation and detach his or herself from the research (Gieryn
1999; Charmaz 2006; Johnstone 2008). Papers go through the process of peer-
review by colleagues as well as an editorial process before a paper is published.
Quite often this means there is a significant gap between the execution and
publication of research. Once published, the production of responses to that paper,
such as replication, criticism, and comment, must again pass through the defined
21
process, making immediate response difficult for scientists, and almost impossible for
non-scientists.
Though almost all peer-reviewed research is available online, many journals still
follow subscription models requiring readers to purchase articles. A growing
movement for open access to both data and the results of research, particularly
publicly-funded research, is supported by both non-scientists and scientists alike
(Dickson 2012; Sanchez 2012).
No research was found regarding the influence of blogging on traditional academic
processes, or how blogs could be used to address some of the pitfalls mentioned
above—namely timely response to criticism and instant communication. This study
attempts in small part to address if and how scientists are using blogs to compensate
for failures of the academic literature to adapt to the culture of instant and open
access.
Participants and Discourse
Decision-making and the role of science
Scientific knowledge generally informs public decision-making via three different
approaches, as discussed in Hulme (2009b).
1. The technocratic approach is one where robust and impartial scientific “facts”
directly inform and shape public decisions.
2. The decisionist approach by which decision makers identify what policies
need to achieve, and experts then examine different ways of fulfilling those
policies; and
3. The co-production approach considers both scientific expertise and political
and societal goals in the development of regulations and decisions.
The first two approaches are being used now and have been used extensively in the
past, but have not proved sufficient for policy decision-making on climate change
issues (Jasanoff & Wynne 1998; Demeritt 2006; Hulme 2009b). The third approach is
suggested as an alternative, due to scientific uncertainties, potential consequences,
and the scale of the problem (Jasanoff & Wynne 1998; Hulme 2009b).
Technocratic and decisionist approaches are appropriate when the science is
established and accepted; climate science has not yet reached that stage of
22
acceptance in the public sphere (Hulme 2009b; Ravetz 2011). Climate science is still
largely “science in the making” and thus generates public, as well as scientific,
debate and media coverage (Gregory & Miller 1998e). Post-normal science issues
like climate change, where the stakes are high, uncertainties are large, and time-
scales are urgent, are particularly difficult for policy-makers and the public to grapple
with (Noble & Bennett 2007; Turnpenny et al. 2009; Ravetz 2011).
In Why We Disagree about Climate Change, Hulme (2009b) cautions against asking
science to make normative statements, as science can only make positive
statements. Yet, it could be argued that, through processes such at the development
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s reports and through
technocratic decision-making models, we are asking climate scientists to do just that.
If climate science itself remains value-free, then who makes the decisions about what
is good or bad, dangerous or acceptable?
As previously discussed, traditional positivistic science does not make normative
judgements. However, climate change issues call on members of the public and
policymakers to make decisions that inevitably involve values and risk perception.
These are judgements made by individuals, based on their own values and
perceptions of risk. Thus the communication of issues, the values espoused,
expertise, credibility, and the frameworks used are important.
Expertise and boundaries
Who is an “expert” on climate change? Is that different from an expert on climate
science? Who is allowed to participate, contribute, and criticise climate science and
climate change science? There are no easy answers.
The technocratic and decisionist models rely on science and “facts” remaining
separate from society, where ultimately decisions are made; this boundary is fluid
and dependent on personal worldviews and filters (Irwin & Wynne 2004; Hulme
2009d). One alternative is greater dialogue, as mentioned previously, across this
divide of expert and non-expert. Blogs are one way of encouraging two-way dialogue
(Hulme 2009a; Henderson-Sellers 2010; Ravetz 2011). But does this use of a
dialogue-based communication model open science up to unexpected scrutiny? How
does this blur the boundary of science and society? This study will examine how
23
expertise is determined by bloggers, and the boundaries these authors draw around
science and society.
Roles: Science, Government and Society
The daily lives of most people depend on objects, processes and technologies which
they can operate but do not fully comprehend. We rely on experts for assurance that
any associated risks are acceptable when we lack the knowledge ourselves (Gregory
& Miller 1998a). Experts need to be readily identifiable and trustworthy, as knowledge
from a trusted source may eliminate the need for an individual to fully understand an
issue (Gregory & Miller 1998e).
But there is often a difference between perception and actual risk. If a risk is
perceived as beyond an individual’s control, he or she is less likely to accept it
(Thompson & Rayner 1998; Hulme 2009a; Khan & Faruque 2010). In addition,
publicly discussing controversy over an issue may not give the public the information
or tools they need to understand the risks and ultimately make a decision (Gregory &
Miller 1998a). When trust levels are high, the public are generally inattentive to an
issue; the breakdown of this trust generates interest and the public demands that
science account for itself (Gregory & Miller 1998e).
Is scientific evidence the root of debate on climate change, or is it a debate about
trust and credibility? Is it both? Trust, credibility, expertise, engagement, and
motivation are important factors in the greater climate change discourse. This study
will examine if and how these issues are discussed in the blogosphere, and how the
medium itself shapes these issues, and how blogs are shaped by the discourse itself.
24
Methodology Review
Qualitative Research
Though discourse analysis can be approached quantitatively, the research question
and lack of existing research in climate change blog communication lent itself to
qualitative methods. Content analysis, though used briefly in the selection of blogs for
the study, did not delve deep enough into the data to answer the research questions.
Quantitative analysis is used in a small component of the study, but due to restricted
sample sizes is not relevant to final results.
The approach to this study was interpretive, with themes and codes arising from the
data instead of being predetermined. Values, frameworks, ideology and expertise
were identified as potential areas of interest, but themes, discourses and frameworks
were interpreted from the data itself.
Interpretivism postulates that there are many possible perspectives and meanings
which are socially constructed (Charmaz 2006). The blogosphere is arguably not part
of the natural world, but is entirely a construct of the human mind and ingenuity. The
Internet is a social construction, a web of humans interacting with each other and
influencing each other in a virtual landscape. It is a subjective experience which each
user shapes according to his or her purposes. An interpretive approach allows for the
existence of complex relationships and interactions.
Because little thematic research has been conducted on climate change blogs,
particularly those of scientists, an inductive approach allows for new themes and
patterns to emerge.
Discourse Analysis
Blog discourse is largely text-based, though graphics and video are also commonly
deployed. Unlike traditional printed materials the text is more easily shared and can
also be altered and influenced after it is originally published. Blog posts, with this
malleability and user interaction through comments, lie between traditional written
discourse and spoken discourse (Simon 2007). Unlike other forms of electronic
communication such as email or online forums, blogs are available for anyone to
read (Snee 2010). They are a public communication platform that collapses
geographic distance.
25
Discourse analysis covers a large spectrum of research methods and approaches.
This study draws from thematic analysis and grounded theory methods (Boyatzis
1998; Charmaz 2006; Johnstone 2008). Thematic analysis and inductive coding
allow themes to arise from the data instead of pre-describing them, which some
practitioners posit keeps the results closer to the original data (Boyatzis 1998;
Charmaz 2006). This process is described in the Methods section.
Grounded theory is a social constructivist approach to research (Charmaz 2006). The
components of grounded theory utilised in this study were:
Inductive coding process
Simultaneous data collection and analysis
Writing memos as part of defining relationships, identifying gaps, and
exploring categories
Sampling that is not representative of the population
In grounded theory work, the literature review is conducted after the analysis is
complete (Charmaz 2006). In this study, a literature review was carried out prior, but
was largely off-target and was re-written after the analysis was complete.
But what relates the constructed themes to the participants, and the medium? To
explore this, components of the heuristic proposed by Johnstone were used to
structure the analysis (Johnstone 2008). Of the six components of the heuristic, the
following were most applicable in addressing the research questions:
“Discourse is shaped by the world, and discourse shapes the world.
Discourse is shaped by participants, and discourse shapes participants.
Discourse is shaped by its medium, and discourse shapes the possibilities of
its medium.” (Johnstone 2008: 10)
While other components of the heuristic could be used on this data, it was beyond
the boundaries and time constraints of the current project to pursue them in detail.
Coding of Qualitative Data
Qualitative data is generally organised and analysed through the process of coding.
Codes are a series of categories and labels attached to excerpts of text (Lee & Lings
2008; Cresswell 2009).
26
Codes can serve different purposes. Miles and Huberman (1994) identify pattern,
interpretation, and description, while Lee and Lings (2008) also include organisation
(Miles & Huberman 1994; Lee & Lings 2008). The codes can be developed from the
data, or may be predetermined by the researcher (Cresswell 2009).
In this study, codes were developed from the data using thematic analysis, based on
the methods suggested by Boyatzis (1998). The process is described in more detail
in the methods section.
The software used for analysis is a cloud-based solution called Dedoose. It was
designed specifically for qualitative and mixed method research approaches. It was
selected for its ease of use, cost, secure data storage, and because its browser-
based interface meant it functioned across platforms. This also allowed the
researcher to access, upload and analyse data from numerous locations. An
example screen is shown in Figure 1. With this software, and similar products, it is
possible to reduce the time required to code and analyse data, as well as to combine
qualitative and quantitative data.
Figure 1. The main screen of the qualitative research software, Dedoose, that was used in this study. www.dedoose.com
27
Assumptions and Limitations
Using software for qualitative research does have limitations. It is important not to be
lead by the structure of the software itself, and continue analysis outside of the
software project (Lewins & Silver 2007). As well, code development requires both
consistency of judgement by the coder and reliability of the code across coders
(Boyatzis 1998). These concerns will be addressed in the methods section.
Discourse analysis of text generally precludes important information about the people
having the discussion, such as non-verbal cues, tone, and cadence (Boyatzis 1998;
Johnstone 2008). Themes such as motivation, goals, and other information such as
intended and actual audiences may not be apparent through data collection or
discourse analysis. Ideally this would be addressed with interviews of the
participants, but this was not possible within the time confines of this study.
The Researcher
I was trained in the natural sciences and as such have been heavily influenced by
post-positivistic, deductive, quantitative approaches. It is important to acknowledge
these influences so that I am aware of any bias I may carry into the study and
therefore reduce them where possible.
Discourse analysis, and in particular the inductive approach of this study, is very
much interpretative. The researcher is a key component of the actual study; patterns
and themes emerge from the data, and are not prescribed beforehand (Cresswell
2009). My own background, education and interests will influence the themes and
patterns discerned from the data. Though I am aware of this and have made efforts
to identify any bias as it emerged, it is not possible to fully eliminate it. Because I am
interested in expertise and boundaries, I may see this within the data more so than
other themes.
In the spirit of open science and to gain greater insight into blogging, I created a blog
to chronicle the progress of this study, http://climatediscourse.wordpress.com. This
also made my work publicly visible, and allowed bloggers to contact and interact with
me if they so wished.
28
Study Boundaries
The study is a snapshot of blog posts by a collection of authors at a particular period
of time. It is important to consider the context of that time period, including major
events that may have influenced the discourse. It is not a representative study of all
those who blog, or those who blog about climate change. It is limited to the English
language. Those who do not have access to the Internet or web-based technologies
are, because of these considerations, excluded from this type of discourse directly.
Ethical Considerations
Participants in the discourse analysis portion of this study are passive; in examining
their words, placed in the public domain, the researcher feels this falls under fair use
and does not require consent. The researcher created a blog where the process was
chronicled, which is public-facing and any bloggers with questions were able to
contact the researcher or request to be removed or excluded from the study. Ethical
approval was provided by Birkbeck College for this study.
29
Methods
Data Collection
Demographics used in the study
In the mass media, there is often a focus on international, national and group
communications surrounding climate change issues—government policy, the Kyoto
Protocol, the International Panel on Climate Change, and environmental groups such
as Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth (Henderson-Sellers 1998). In general, though
these larger organisations do blog and communicate online, it is individuals who are
writing the posts, and individuals who dominate the blogosphere as both authors and
readers (Anonymous 2011). General statistics again are not available regarding the
breakdown of age, gender, educational background, and profession of climate
bloggers at this time. These were collected where possible as part of this study.
Before proceeding, a feasibility study was conducted to examine whether there was
enough data of sufficient quality to pursue the idea. Using Internet search engines
and specific terms surrounding climate change (see Table 2, below for terms) 25
blogs were identified as potential sources of data. These blogs were examined to
determine demographics, post frequency and confirm the content was relevant to
climate change issues. The same search terms were used in the main study.
Search terms Google Wordpress.com Blogger.com
Climate change blog
Climate blog
Global warming blog
Global warming
Climate science blog
Climate science
Climate model
Table 2. Internet search terms used to find blogs in this study.
30
The feasibility work revealed a large number of individuals who blog about climate
change on a regular basis. However, it was noted that a large number of blogs had
inconsistent posts and many were no longer updated, which is consistent with
previous research on blogs (D. Li & Walejko 2008; Snee 2010).
One of the unique features of blogs is the blogroll: the author identifies other blogs
and websites that he or she thinks may be of potential interest to readers. It is one
example of the interaction and network that exists between bloggers. These were
used to add further blogs to the study. If a blogger had a Twitter account, the
researcher “followed” the user. There was no formal analysis of the interactions on
Twitter, as it was beyond the scope of this study.
The researcher also asked, via her blog, classmates, and social media channels, for
bloggers or blog readers to submit recommendations. The resulting list of blogs was
added to Google Reader, an online tool that allows users to “subscribe” to blogs via
RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feeds. Through Google Reader, the researcher was
notified when new posts were made to the blogs, which were added to the database
for analysis.
Selection criteria
The discourse of journalists and online media sources were not the focus of this
study; these types of online communication have been examined elsewhere
(Weingart et al. 2000; Boykoff & Rajan 2007; Carvalho 2007; Gavin 2009; Gavin &
Marshall 2011). Exclusion criteria were blogs as follows:
Had not been updated in the past 2 months
Were private (password protected)
Hosted, edited, or written by mass media outlets and journalists
Were in languages other than English
Were written by politicians currently holding office
Were not original content sites (not posting original content—content
aggregates or news type blogs)
Did not discuss climate change or climate change issues
No RSS feed available (for data collection)
The author was age 18 or under.
31
Blogs with anonymous authors were considered for exclusion but were included upon
further reflection as they were few in number. The researcher didn’t want to exclude
this category in case anonymity changed discourse and interaction. In total, 32 blogs
were added to the main study for consideration, out of more than 55 identified
through the above search methods. The full list is available in Appendix A. It is
important to note that, by excluding all other languages, a considerable proportion of
Internet traffic and potential blogs were eliminated from this study. This study is in no
way representative beyond the group of blogs chosen.
Demographic information
Once the initial blog list was established, quantitative data was collected for each
blog, author and post as described in Table 3 (p33) and uploaded into Dedoose. The
data collected for analysis was linked to the corresponding demographic information.
The text of each post was copied and saved as either a text or PDF file, then
imported into the Dedoose software. Each text was named according to Blog ID-
Author ID-Post Date-Post number.
Setting
Blogs occupy a unique niche in climate change communication. They are
inexpensive to create and widely available to those with Internet access. They are
not restricted geographically, by occupation, by editors or by paywalls. This allows a
number of people who may not traditionally be part of climate change discourse to
take part. The implications of this will be examined further in the discussion.
The study took place in the months following the release of a second batch of emails
stolen from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, dubbed
Climategate 2.0 (Black 2011b; Samenow 2011). The United Nations Conference of
the Parties had been held in the previous month, in Durban, South Africa (Black
2011a). During the time period, the release of documents obtained from the think
tank Heartland and the subsequent confession that they had been obtained under
false pretences by Dr. Peter Gleick, a climate researcher, also occurred, though this
happened at the end of the study period (Goldenberg 2012). Other events of note
include the Republican primaries in the United States, and shale gas debates in the
United Kingdom (Kinver 2011; Anonymous 2012c; Wachman 2012). It is important to
32
be aware of these events as they may have influenced the shape and direction of the
discourses.
Blogger demographic information Post demographic information
Blog ID Blog ID
Author ID Author ID
Blog title Post date
Blog URL Access date
Gender Post title
Nationality Number of comments
Location Number of replies
Occupation Graphics present
Academic Affiliation Guest Author
Expertise level Hyperlink to post
Number of posts in study period
Table 3. Demographic information collected on the blogs, posts and authors in this study. These were used as Descriptors in the Dedoose software.
People
To study how climate change is discussed at the boundary of science and society,
both scientists and non-scientists were included in the study. Specific definitions of
“scientist” and “non-scientist” are located in the introduction.
There are many other voices in climate change discourse online, such as non-profit
groups, environmental groups, politicians, governments and mass media. However,
this study is focused on the individual and as such is looking at communication of
science by individuals, in particular those with scientific interests.
33
Events
Blogs are both fixed and dynamic. Though posts are displayed in date order and
archived, they can be altered by the author at any time (Li & Walejko 2008; Snee
2010). Posts are also open to comment for different lengths of time on different
blogs. As well, blogs are very reactive to events in the media and politics, which
makes it difficult to pinpoint what is “normal” blogging activity and what is not (Li &
Walejko 2008; Johnson & Kaye 2009). A longer timeframe would have been
preferred, but was not possible due to the volume of data and limited resources for
analysis.
Processes
The unit of analysis for this study is not the blog, but the authors of the blog posts.
While conducting initial research and examining the quantitative data, it became
apparent that a number of blogs had multiple authors. Sixty-six authors were
identified amongst the 32 blogs selected for the sample (Table 1, Appendix A.)
The unit of coding is therefore the blog post. Each post has a unique author that is
generally identifiable in the structure of the post; blogging software typically lists the
date and author for each post. However, it is not always possible to view posts by
each author, which made data collection difficult and time consuming.
Because the study is exploring expertise and boundaries, the education levels and
profession of the bloggers was determined where possible and authors divided into
three categories: Scientist, Science training, and non-scientist. For efficiency, the
science training and non-scientist categories were combined for code development
and this was used as the criterion for anchoring the sample.
Combining these into two categories of scientist and non-scientist resulted in an
equal split. The unit of analysis of the sample included up to 837 potential blog posts,
which was sufficient in variance for a comprehensive analysis (Boyatzis 1998) but
constituted an overwhelming amount of data for a study of this size and duration.
Sub-sampling is described later in this section.
When data collection began, the blogs were again checked against the selection
criteria and five were found to no longer qualify. The number of authors who had
34
actively posted during the study period was also calculated. The sample numbers
shifted as reflected in Table 4.
Unit Original sample size
Sample Size (entire study)
Sub-sample size for code development (per group)
Blog Author 61 40 6
Blog Posts 834 164 18
Table 4. Original and revised sample sizes and units used in this study.
Sub-sampling
Seven authors were randomly selected from each of the two groups for the code
development process. Three posts by each author from the collected data were also
selected from across the time period (N=18, see Table 4).
All posts were dated between January 1, 2012 and March 1, 2012. Only the main text
of the post, written by the author, was used in this analysis, though comment
numbers and replies were recorded. Graphic and video data were not included,
though their presence was noted.
Though software was used for the analysis, the code development took place
through note taking and memos, to avoid the code being led by the characteristics of
the software (Figure 2, p36). Each of the selected sub-samples was subjected to the
following process: (Boyatzis 1998)
1. Raw information reduction/Outline creation
2. Theme identification within sub-sample groups
3. Articulate themes from prior research, researcher knowledge, and through
comparison/contrast between sub-samples
4. Code creation
5. Reliability testing
35
Figure 2. Checking the code development by hand.
Figure 3. A screenshot of the coding process in Dedoose.
36
Initial Coding
The code was then initially applied to a sub-set of 164 posts made during the study
period. The first four posts chronologically from each author were selected and
coded, though some others did not post this many times during the study period.
The coding process is show in Figure 3, p36). From this initial coding, quantitative
analysis of the code frequencies was conducted.
To examine the statistical significance of whether different themes were more
prominent amongst scientists or non-scientist authors in the study, a Chi-Squared
analysis was performed using SPSS software for each of the code categories. The
Chi-Squared was chosen because the data was not normally distributed. It is
calculated as follows:
Χ2 = (Observed frequency–expected frequency)2
Expected frequency
The null hypothesis stated that, for each code, there is no significant difference in
observed frequency between scientists and non-scientists—that is, there is no
statistically significant difference between the presence or absence of the code
based on education level. This was performed as guidance for further in-depth
analysis of particularly relevant codes.
A deeper analysis was applied to the initial dataset, and the codes by education level
(scientist/non-scientist) comparatively analysed (Figure 4, p37). The heuristic was
used to refine the research question and sub-questions (Table 1, p11). Code co-
occurrence was also examined (Tables 1-12, Appendix B.) These were complied in a
large matrix, from which the discourses were identified (Tables 3-8, Appendix A.)
37
Figure 4. A screenshot of memos within the Dedoose software.
A set of discourses was developed from these analyses, using context charts and
sticky notes. Context charts were also used to identify different frameworks that were
in use, using links and memos from the data. The researcher attempted axial coding
techniques, but did not find them suitable for the dataset.
Validity and Reliability
In qualitative studies, reliability and validity have different meanings than in
quantitative work. The measures taken to ensure validity and reliability in this study
are outlined below.
Qualitative Reliability
Reliability in qualitative studies has less to do with consistent results across studies
and more to do with consistent approaches and procedures (Cresswell 2009). In this
study, the following reliability procedures were followed:
All collected data was categorised and stored in a logical, expandable
database (see Table 1-2, Appendix A); data was checked as it was collected
and uploaded to ensure it had been labelled correctly.
All data was linked to its descriptive information through the analysis software
used, so the original post could be viewed if necessary.
Code definitions and exclusions were written directly into the coding software,
so that they could be reviewed during every coding session or at any time
38
simply by hovering over the code. This helped to avoid shifting meanings
during the coding.
During code development, the codes were first tested on a small sample and
adjusted to ensure the definitions were clear.
Inter-rater reliability testing facilities, built into the analysis software, were used
to test the researcher’s consistency in code application (See Table 5, p39).
The purpose was to achieve greater than 90% consistency of judgement as
recommended by Miles and Huberman (1994). However, 0.74 was the highest
level achieved; use of this facility more widely, earlier in the study, would have
improved consistency and aided in code development.
A research journal was kept, detailing the researcher’s thoughts and decisions
throughout the study.
TestNumber of Ex-cerpts in test
Pooled Kohen's Kappa Action
1 29 0.53 recode2 29 0.68 recode3 29 0.74 continue coding
Table 5. Inter-rater reliability test results, calculated using Dedoose software.
Qualitative Validity
How accurate the findings of a qualitative study are is difficult to discern and there
are numerous suggestions in the literature (Miles & Huberman 1994; Charmaz 2006;
Cresswell 2009). For the purposes of this study, the following strategies were used to
strengthen validity:
Acknowledgement of researcher bias and background.
Ensuring anonymity of the blogs and blog authors through numerical naming
to avoid any bias or pre-formed opinions the researcher may have about an
author or blog, due to previous experience.
Conducting member checking with the codes, emerging discourses and
frameworks by revisiting the excerpts. As well, blog posts were made on the
researcher’s blog concerning these, so that participants could comment if they
wished.
Considering any contradictory cases or instances within the study
Observing many of the authors for an extended period after the study time
frame, through their blogs and other social media, to better understand how
blogs were being used by the authors
39
Clearly explaining the context of the study and the limitation of any theories
and findings to this study; making no claims that were not supported by the
data.
It would have been preferable to return to the dataset and code for the discourses
and frameworks, as well as to examine absences and silences of those codes. In
further research, it would be interesting to examine these within blogs as well as
comparatively.
40
Results
Demographics of the authors
Figure 5. Location of authors by geographic region for scientists and non-scientists.
As anticipated, the authors in this study are based in Western nations, predominately
North America and Europe (Figure 5). It is important to note that over half of the
authors in this study (51%) are based in North America, where climate change
discourse in other forms has become increasing vitriolic and politicised (McCright
2011; Nerlich 2010). This influence may be seen in the themes, discourses and
frameworks that emerged in this study.
The majority of scientists (62%) in this study who blog are also located in North
America, compared to 42% of non-scientists (FIGURE 5). This is an interesting result
—why are scientists in North America writing blogs? Is it more broadly acceptable or
expected of scientists there? Do they feel compelled to write because of the climate
change debate? The American Geophysical Union has over 60,000 members
worldwide, over 20,000 of which are in the United States—why are these scientists
not blogging? (Anonymous 2012b). These questions are beyond the scope of this
study and must be addressed by future research.
41
The bloggers in this study were overwhelmingly male; only 6 authors (15%) were
female, and only two of those scientists. Though this result is interesting, it is beyond
the scope of this study to pursue discourse differences surrounding gender.
Code Development
In this study, the development of the code itself is the emergence of initial themes
aimed at answering the research question (Table 6, p 42-43).
Coding Application
Figure 6 (p 44) shows the results of code application for scientists and non-scientists.
Upon application to the larger dataset, certain themes prominent in the code
development were subsequently less frequent, such as temperature proxies and
records and climate models.
Code Co-occurrence
The most common co-occurrences were:
1. How science is conducted—Science communication
2. How science is conducted—The role of science in society
3. Science communication—The role of science in society
4. Science communication—Personal expressions and connections
5. Taking action on climate change—The role of science in society
6. Climate models—How science is conducted
7. Taking action on climate change—Science communication
8. Caution, criticism and scepticism—Personal expressions and connections
9. Climate and weather phenomena—Science communication
10. How things work—How science is conducted
A full matrix of co-occurrences is available in Appendix B (Tables 1 and 2). Matrices
were constructed to consider the research questions in the context of these co-
occurring themes, starting with the most frequent (Appendix B.) As the number of co-
occurrences decreased, fewer themes emerged; the co-occurrences were thus taken
forward into analysis of the discourses and frameworks (Table 7, p45). With a larger
or more focused dataset, this may have been avoided.
42
Label/Code Description Exclusions
How science is con-ducted
A discussion, criticism and or explanation of how science is con-ducted. This includes references to debate within the scientific community.
This does not include any references to how sci-ence is communicated to a larger audience, or claims that a scientist/source is not being object-ive and deliberately being misleading(disinforma-tion and mispresentation)
Personal expres-sions and connec-tions
When a personal opinion is voiced, or a judgement is made/per-sonal position stated. Text that reveals emotional or personal life. Asking for input and opinions, making reference to readers and audience. Reference to other bloggers or online communit-ies Organisational or employee stances
Science communic-ation and the com-munication of sci-ence
text referring to how science is communicated and the industry of science communication, including coverage in the media and online media. Actual scientific methods and processes
The role of science in society
Text relating to the role of scientists in making decisions or influ-encing policy, or of the public's input and influence on science. Claims or references to expertise and what it means. Issues of credibility and trust. The neutrality and objectivity of science.
How science is conducted, the peer-review pro-cess
Temperature prox-ies and records
Reference to temperature proxies used to estimate past temper-ature, latest research, criticism of proxies themselves or how they are used, support/defence of research with proxies, meth-ods, current temperature measurement methods.
Climate models (this is another category) and temperature extremes
Climate modelsText referencing computer-based climate models, earth systems models, atmospheric models, coupled models.
43
Taking action on cli-mate change
References to action the public, governments at any level, and/or science must take to address issues surrounding climate change. These include adaptation, mitigation, energy, econom-ics, public health, conservation, resources, and development References to communication of science
How things work—explanations
text explaining a phenomenon or technique related to climate change and climate change studies. Examples: how climate models work, what is the greenhouse effect, system boundaries, measuring sea level rise
Exclusion: critical assessments of scientific meth-ods.
Climate and weather phenom-ena
Reference to climate features such as ENSO/El Nino, to tem-perature extremes, unusual weather or seasons, tornados and hurricanes. Examples: cold winters in Europe, heat waves, ex-cessive snowfall, high/low temperature record breaking Climate models
Caution, criticism and scepticism
Text that disputes or differs from scientific consensus, criticizes approach to climate change policies and science. Expressing disbelief in a theory, idea, or piece of research without providing evidence. Confirmation bias (cherry picking)
critical, legitimate criticism of scientific method, peer-reviewed work
Table 6. Themes developed inductively from the data and used as codes during the study.
44
Figure 6. Application of codes: frequency for scientists and non-scientists.
45
Co-occurrence codes Emerging Discourses
How science is conducted—Science Communication and the Communication of Science
The process of science, Expertise and Credibility, true/proper scepticism and science, openness/access/trans-parency, responsible communication, misrust of media, solve problems scientifically
How science is conducted—The role of science in society
Worldviews and detachment of researchers, objectivity, true scepticism, playing by the rules of science, eco-nomy, waste
Science communication and the communication of science—The role of science in society
Truth-telling, self-promotion, morality and ethics, battle and war, worldview problems, democracy and freedom
Science communication and the communication of science—Personal expressions and connections
interaction and engagement, failure of science commu-nication, true scepticism, truth telling, credibility, expert-ise, titles and affliations
Taking action on climate change—The role of science and society
Questioning motivation and objectivity, ethics and moral-ity, wider application of scientific method, separation of advocacy and environmental ideology, questioning au-thority of science
How science is conducted—Climate models
Convenient science, taking ownership of scepticism, transforming information into knowledge
Taking action on climate change—Science communica-tion and the communication of science
Convenient science, confirmation bias, security and en-ergy, self promotion, politicising weather, direct engage-ment, expertise, discrediting opponents
Caution, criticism and scepti-cism—Personal expressions and connections
fiction, myth and legend, wasting research funds, uncer-tainty, logical fallacy of dismissing all because part is flawed, secrecy and censorship, objectivity, true scepti-cism
Climate and weather phenom-ena—Science communication and the communication of sci-ence
open access, transparency, open science, public access to science
How things work—How sci-ence is conducted
breaking free of traditional science/academic communic-ation and peer-review, science literacy
Temperature proxies—How science is conducted n/a
Table 7. Emerging discourses recorded during matrix analysis of co-occurrence excerpts. Full matrices are available in Appendix B.
46
Chi-Square results
The null hypothesis was rejected for the following codes (see Table 8):
• Science communication and the communication of science
• The role of science in society
• Temperature proxies and records
• Taking action on climate change
• Climate and weather phenomena
• Caution, criticism and scepticism
Code
Pearson Chi-Square value
Degrees of free-dom Significance
How Science is Conducted 0.029 1 0.865Personal expressions and con-nections 0.409 1 0.523Science communication and the communication of science 10.979 1 0.001the role of science in societ 12.106 1 0.001Temperature proxies and re-cords 65.733 1 0Climate models 4.05 1 0.044Taking action on climate change 8.27 1 0.004How things work—explana-tions 3.091 1 0.079Climate and weather phenom-ena 61.036 1 0Caution, criticism and scepti-cism 37.599 1 0
Table 8. Chi Square results for each theme, where the observed and expected frequencies were compared.
These results focused, to some extent, further analysis of the data. However, this test
does not indicate direction (visually apparent in Figure 1, Appendix B) and does not
explain why. Because the study is exploring commonalities as well as differences,
the rejection of the null hypothesis did not preclude further study of themes,
particularly when the theme was one of the most frequently coded. The discourse is
not determined by the category; there is no indication that being a scientist or not
determines the discourse. While interesting, these results are not representative.
47
Matrices were used to examine the co-occurrence data more closely (see Appendix
B.) Potential frames and discourses were noted, though no additional or unique
insights appeared. Emerging themes by co-occurrence are noted in Table 7 (p 45).
Motivation and Purpose
The motivations of the bloggers were noted within the Personal expressions code
and examined within matrices (Appendix B). Motivations were not always explicitly or
implicitly stated, and are the interpretation of the researcher. The following
motivations were identified or stated:
Rebuttals of the media
Responding to criticism and attack by others
Telling their version of the truth
Direct engagement
Criticising and questioning others, science, institutions, processes
Self promotion and promotion of research
Motivations were heterogeneous in the data and difficult to identify or generalise.
This needs to be further explored in future studies, preferably by asking the authors
directly.
Figure 7. The relationship amongst themes, discourses and frameworks within this study.
Frameworks and Discourses
Analysis of the data using matrices and context charts of co-occurring codes, and
analysis of Scientist and Non-scientist excerpts (Appendix A and B) resulted in the
48
identification of five frameworks and five discourses. The frameworks and discourses
overlap and intertwine with the originally coded themes (Figure 7, p 47).
Frameworks
Economy and Waste
This framework focuses on the economic costs and benefits of different regulatory
and policy directions. It is also used for promoting positions on how research should
be funded. It can be both positive and negative, and is used to support certain policy
approaches or to caution against others.
Climate Change War
Climate science, communications, and policy are framed in the language and context
of war. Metaphors and other linguistic techniques common to discussions of armed
conflict are applied.
Truth-telling
In this framework, the author acts as the source of truth. Authority and
trustworthiness of others are questioned. The author and trusted sources are
espoused as “true” sceptics or experts.
Democracy and Freedom
An author frames the topic as an issue that is a threat, affront, or example of,
democratic processes and freedom of expression or speech. Suppression,
censorship, exclusion, threats and fear are often discussed, as well as openness and
transparency.
Ethics and Morality
This framework situates climate change issues and decisions as an ethical, not
political, problem. Sacred values, religious and moral standpoints are invoked.
Discourses
Each of these discourses and frameworks (Table 9, p 49-50) will be considered
within the heuristic (Table 1, p11) and research questions in the next section.
49
Discourse Definition Description Related Frameworks
Credibility, Trust and Expertise
Establishing, maintaining, asserting and questioning expertise was preval-ent in the discourse across the themes. Expertise is fluid, and entirely dependent on the perspective of the author in question, the topic of discus-sion, and context.
Someone respected by peers, politicians, in-dustry and the general public; published in peer-reviewed literature; working for or with a respec-ted institution; assuming a leadership or volun-tary role is an expert. Truth-Telling
References to credibility, loss, doubt, or asser-tions of; differentiating between authority and crediblity; making Bayesian judgements; using titles and afflications to indicate status, authority and/or credibility and trust. Economy and Waste
Ethics and Morality
The True Sceptic
An individual who exhibits the qualit-ies of an objective, unbiased, critical questioning approach.
Discussion of what makes a proper sceptic and the faults of false sceptics. True sceptics are ob-jective and critical of all information, possess in-depth knowledge of the area in question, support their statements with evidence, understand and ultilise the tools of scientific method, and particip-ate in the peer-review process. Truth-Telling
Economy and WasteEthics and Morality
Secrecy and Cen- Raising concerns around openness, Identifiying and discussing flaws, issues and Ethics and Morality
50
sorship
transparency and honesty in climate science, policy-making, peer-review and climate science communication
events such as Climategate and IPCC errors, discussions of think tanks such as Heartland and Global Warming Policy Foundation, exclusion
Truth-TellingDemocracy and Free-domClimate Change War
Life in the Open
The consequences of openness, transparency, and speaking out; cy-ber-bullying, intimidation, politics and non-scientists interfering with science processes
Freedom of expression, fear of suppression, politicisation of science and science education, cyberbullying and harrassment, schoolyard bully tactics, boundaries
Democracy and Free-domClimate Change War
Scientific Perspect-ives— Worldviews
Championing the scientific method, objectivity, and true scepticism, the peer-review process
Defending current practices and processes, ar-guing for expansion, claiming true scepticism, supporting peer review process Truth-Telling
Climate Change WarEconomy and Waste
Table 9. Discourses that have emerged from this study and the related frameworks.
51
Discussion
In this section we will discuss in more detail the discourses and frameworks that have
emerged, in the context of current literature and topics introduced in the literature
review. Where possible, conclusions are drawn with reference to the research
questions, however the data proved to be very heterogeneous and as such are not
considered to be representative even of the posts within this study.
World and Discourse
Worldviews
The traditional voice of science is very
strong amongst the authors of this study,
though not universal. The worldview that
emerges is one where true objectivity is
claimed by scientists and non-scientists
alike. That objectivity is also called into
question when an author (or the person
being discussed) advocates policy
measures or gets involved in politics. This
line between objectivity and advocacy is
worth examining further.
Objectivity and Advocacy—when does science cross the line?
Dr. Thomas Karl, the director of the National Climate Data Center at the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the United States, stated his opinion at a
recent Royal Institution lecture that scientists need to stick to “pure science” and
remain separate from advocacy on certain policy positions (Karl 2012). He also
noted, however, that this wasn’t the position of all scientists, and gave the example of
Dr. James Hansen, a colleague who has recently been involved in political
campaigning on issues such as the Keystone XL pipeline (Karl 2012). This advocacy
by some scientists may affect their position as a reliable, credible source of objective
science, amongst both scientists and non-scientists alike. But is it a positive or a
negative influence? It is suspected to be both, but this needs further study.
“Reforming public communication about anthropogenic climate change will require humility on the part of scientists and educators. Climate scientists, for whom any inherent doubts about the possible extent of human influence on the climate were overcome by years of training in physics and chemistry of the climate system, need to accept that there are rational cultural, religious, and historical reasons why the public may fail to believe that anthropogenic climate change is real, let alone that it warrants a policy response.” Blog 21, Author 137, 01252012-1
52
There was a statistically significant difference between scientists and non-scientists
in this study when discussing action on climate change, with scientists discussing it
more (Table 8, p 46.) But what exactly were they discussing?
Some scientist authors were chafing at the lack of action in policy development
addressing what, to them, is compelling and undeniable evidence. For the most part,
the scientists were not prescribing policy, but rather bemoaning the lack of scientific
rigour in policy and decision-making surrounding climate change issues. They were
advocating for a wider adoption of a scientific worldview, where evidence, reason,
and logic prevail over politics, emotion and ideology. This was particularly true when
the topic was future energy provision and the use of nuclear power and shale gas,
which were topical issues during the study period.
Many non-scientists, on the other hand, were
concerned with the professed objectivity and scientific
credibility of scientists and scientific institutions, though
this was a concern of scientists as well. This may stem
from a social constructivist worldview, in which a
researcher is always part of the work they do, but the
researcher mainly interprets it as distrust. These
findings are consistent with the work of Hulme, who
suggests that we are asking natural sciences to inform a normative decision process
(Hulme 2009b). This will be discussed further in the values section.
Questions around the processes of the IPCC were raised by both scientists and non-
scientists. The IPCC’s unique mix of policymakers and scientists, its transparency
and review process were issues of concern, as have been identified in previous work
"The conceit of the scientists — if that is what they really are — who have put their names under the letter to the Guardian is that their opinions, their prejudices, their politics are ‘science’." Author 145, Blog 29, 01272012-1
"We look knowledge in the face and deny its existence. We make our convenient arguments for the need for more research in the ill-posed pursuit of the illusive final facts. We fall into the diversion-motivated process of always asking for the next piece of information in what can be a never ending series of information discovery." Author 124, Blog 10, 01312012-1
“I think that the science community needs a louder voice in the society, and there is a need for bringing some of the science-related debates closer to true science. We need to explain the virtues of the scientific method, such as transparency, replication of past results, testing and evaluating the methods and conclusions. These virtues lead to the most credible answers.” Blog 2, Author 106, 02122012-1
53
(Shackley & Skodvin 1995; Hulme 2010a; Ravindranath 2010). Recent inquiries into
processes at the IPCC have also made recommendations for improvements (Hulme
2010a; Ravindranath 2010). These issues of trust and credibility in climate science
cast a long shadow of doubt.
Values and Frameworks
Though values were invoked in the blog posts, it was not evident within the dataset
whether these values were commonly applied by an author, or surrounding a
particular issue. It is therefore difficult to draw any conclusions regarding the use of
values, particularly sacred values. This area deserves its own focused study, with
focused datasets for individual authors, which may provide better results. Let’s
instead consider the frameworks identified in this study with previous research
(Figure 8, p 56).
Economy and Waste
Economic frames are common in climate change discourse, both in support of action
on climate change and cautioning against certain policy choices (Boykoff & Rajan
2007; Lorenzoni & Hulme 2009; de Boer et al. 2010; Srinivasan 2010; Hallegatte et
al. 2011). In this study, economic frames were used frequently in discussions of
policy choices surrounding energy.
Waste, for the purposes of this study, refers to perceived squandering or
misspending of funds. This included misspending government money on different
energy choices, on contributions to organisations such as the IPCC, and the
allocation of research funds.
The only excerpts that stated global warming is not happening, is a lie or hoax were
not supported by any scientific evidence, and were used in the context of supporting
free markets and opposing regulation. There were actually very few statements of
this sort in the posts.
The Climate Change War
Debates and disagreements over climate change issues have previously adopted the
rhetoric of war (Cohen 2010; Oreskes 2011; Hulme 2009e). So prevalent is the war
metaphor that climate scientist Michael Mann used it in the title of his recent book
(Mann 2012a). Use of this metaphor is problematic for several reasons. One, it
54
immediately creates sides and opponents, introducing a divisiveness into the debate.
It also implies that there will be winners and losers in the debate, effectively
polarising and simplifying a complex problem.
We traditionally go to war to protect the things we believe in—our sacred values.
Thus this framework overlaps with the Democracy and Freedom framework, two
common values in Western society. The war mentioned in the media, however, and
the war to which Mann refers, are two related but separate issues. One is the task of
taking action on climate change, a war on carbon, a war in which life battles the
consequences of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. The other is the perceived
war on climate science itself, which is the war to which Mann refers.
In this study, it is the latter which is discussed, predominately by scientists. It is a
battle in which truth-telling and true scepticism are fought over, as if in a tug of war.
Scepticism, a cornerstone of postpostivist science, is a term frequently applied to
those who question the institutions of, and the scientific consensus on, climate
science and climate change (Gavin & Marshall 2011; Whitmarsh 2011; Nielsen-
Gammon 2012). But if scientists are sceptics, does that mean that sceptics can
therefore only be scientists? Do non-scientists not have the right to question and
criticise science, particularly when the stakes are high? Are scientists using blogs,
consciously or unconsciously, to reclaim scepticism and thus exclude dissenters from
participation in both the processes of climate science and the debate surrounding it?
The dispute over the boundaries and ownership of scepticism is discussed further in
the participants section. Perhaps it is not a war, but rather a shift in the boundaries of
who can participate in science, which may feel threatening to scientists.
In the context of this study, the war is not on climate change, but is instead a debate
over the process of science, expertise and credibility. The role that science plays in
society, and that society plays in science, is disputed territory.
Democracy and Freedom
Looking at prior use of this framework, it seems to be largely economic, relating to
discussions of democracy, regulations and free market capitalism (Held & Hervey,
2008; Held, Kriegler, Lessmann, & Edenhofer, 2009; Koteyko et al., 2010). However,
in this study it was used within what was described earlier as the war on climate
55
science. This framework was not widely used within the study, but would be worth
including in future research.
Truth-Telling
In this framework, the author acts as the source of truth. Authority and
trustworthiness of others are questioned, often by casting doubt on others. The
author and trusted sources are espoused as “true” sceptics or experts. Prior text and
discourse is often referenced in a similar manner to peer-reviewed literature.
Whether this is simply the writing style of many of the authors, or is an intentional
attempt to align the discourse with the credibility and trust of peer-reviewed literature,
is unknown. Use of words such as truth, fact, and reality are common within this
framework, contrasted with unfounded, false, and misinterpreted. Authors using this
framework adopt and use scientific-like terms to add credibility, and contrasting
opposing views as fiction, myths, hoaxes and lies.
Truth-telling is essential for professional credibility (Jasanoff & Wynne 1998; Jasanoff
2010). However, what is viewed as truth is dependent on worldview and application
of normative judgments (Carvalho 2007). The findings of this study are consistent
with this previous work, but the entire area is under-researched and would benefit
from further scrutiny.
Ethics and Morality
Appealing to ethics and morality, to a person’s values, is used in other environmental
discourse to create guilt and motivate or engage readers (Gottlieb 2006; Cenite et al.
2009; Wardekker et al. 2009). This framework was used by several authors to state
that objecting to or delaying policies addressing climate change mitigation were
unethical, but also that communications raising doubts amongst the public on climate
science was morally reprehensible as well. These are the remit of climate change
science, which are predominately social sciences. It is an example of how
technocratic decision-making does not work with climate change (Hulme 2009a;
Pidgeon & Fischhoff 2011).
In this study, postpositivistic worldviews, honesty, truth, objectivity, ethics, and
morality emerged as important themes within blog discourse. But what motivations lie
behind these themes?
56
Figure 8. Examples from the data of each framework.
57
Discourse and Purpose
Motivation is evident in the emergent discourses and frameworks, particularly Truth-
telling and Credibility, Trust, and Expertise, though this is the researcher’s
interpretation and not the explicit declaration of the authors. The finding that authors
were motivated to blog to share their expertise and experience is consistent with
general blogging studies (Hsu & Lin 2008; Cenite et al. 2009; Anonymous 2011). The
purpose behind the discourses is not always apparent.
Truth-Telling
Telling the truth very often involved the author criticising discourse in other blogs or in
the mainstream media. The blog therefore acts as a way for the author to tell a story
from their own perspective—what they view as truth. That the authors feel this is
necessary can be interpreted as a loss of trust in traditional, mainstream media as a
source of objective and accurate reporting on climate change issues, consistent with
previous findings (Carvalho 2007). Numerous studies have addressed balance,
ideology and objectivity in media reports on climate change in support of this view
(Weingart et al. 2000; Boykoff & Boykoff 2004; Boykoff & Boykoff 2007; Boykoff &
Rajan 2007; Eskjaer 2009; Hoijer 2010).
Access
Non-scientific people are generally excluded from the
normal process of academic publishing and peer
review, including the formal criticism of scientific
studies. It is also difficult for a person outside traditional
academia to publish in a peer-reviewed journal. In this
study, both scientists and non-scientists used blogs as
an opportunity to discuss, criticise, and promote climate science and climate change
science. The blog may be blurring the boundary surrounding the academic process
and science communication. That scientists and non-scientists alike feel this
boundary needs to be re-examined is another indicator that certain individuals have
lost trust and respect for the scientific process, though this finding needs to be
verified through further study.
“The blog provides a rare opportunity for those genuinely interested in the science to communicate directly with experts in the field.” (P. 143, Mann, 2012b)
58
We rely upon the fruits of science in countless ways during the course of our daily
lives. Many accept unquestioningly the authority of
established science. The science says this, so we must
do that. Though components of climate science are
settled, there are still large unknowns and uncertainties
—climate change science is still science-in-the-making
(Gieryn 1999; Hulme 2009a; Hulme 2009c). But climate
change issues are not simply a matter of reducing
carbon dioxide emissions. Economic, moral, ethical,
environmental and cultural perspectives and potential consequences need to be
considered (Trumbo & Shanahan 2000; Yearley 2009; Pidgeon & Fischhoff 2011).
That people feel the need to question the role of climate science in the decision-
making process is indicative of a failure in the communication risk, but also of asking
too much of the science before it is ready—attempting to use the wrong decision-
making model (Hulme 2009a; Adger et al. 2011; Pidgeon & Fischhoff 2011). Blogging
may be one way that authors feel they can participate in the decision-making
process. This concept should be pursued in future research.
Self-promotion, interaction and networking
One more obvious motivation for blogging is self-promotion. There is also the appeal
of being able to have a voice, which may not be present in the media. Members of
the public can criticise media, politicians, and scientists directly and gain the attention
of other like-minded individuals via blogs. Scientists who have their research
misinterpreted can explain their results and the limitations of their work.
Early career researchers and lesser-known scientists might make use of blogs to
promote their own work and bring it to the attention of more senior colleagues. Blogs
are also an opportunity to network with others and draw attention to work or issues
an author feels are relevant to his or her audience. Blogs also offer the opportunity to
solicit readers directly for input on the content of the blog, which numerous authors in
this study frequently did. However, self-promotion and networking motivations should
be examined in future research.
Education
“Climate science is warning us of dire consequences that could threaten the habitability of our planet over the next 100+ years. The science suggests that the changes might overwhelm our ability to adapt.” (Blog 1, Author 100, Post 28022012)
59
Education was identified with the code “How things work—explanations.” It was not a
particularly prevalent theme in the dataset; however, this does not mean that blogs
aren’t being used in a much wider context for educational purposes. A much larger
dataset needs to be considered, over different and longer time periods. It is also
worth noting that the researcher was not focused on education and science
education and thus other researchers may arrive at different conclusions from this
data.
Discourse and Medium
Sharing, Promotion and Interaction
The authors in this study made use of the medium to share ideas, support each
other, and interact directly with others. Previous studies have found blogs to be very
personal, with typically “unplanned” discourse falling somewhere between speech
and formal writing (Hsu & Lin 2008; Li & Chignell 2010; Herring 2010). The blogs in
this study ranged from structured articles resembling peer-reviewed literature to
informal and chatty.
Readers were encouraged to share information an author found relevant through
social media channels and links. Linking to other blog posts, academic literature or
mass media articles that the author has read that are relevant to the topic at hand is
also common practice amongst authors in this study, as is referring to previous posts
by that author or others on the same blog. The links could be both in support of the
author’s assertions and as reference to a criticism being made. Authors mentioned
comment thread discussions, both on their blogs and other blogs, leading them to
write a subsequent post on the topic of interest.
Writing styles were heterogeneous and impossible to generalise, which is consistent
with recent work on general science blogs (Kouper 2010).
Communication Models and Education
The theme of How things work—explanations indicates that both scientists and non-
scientists were using blogs to educate. This follows the traditional information-deficit
model of communication as discussed in the literature review (Fischhoff 2007; M
Hulme 2009b; Fischhoff 2011). The prevalence of climate models and temperature
proxies as themes also indicates the dominance of natural sciences within the study.
60
It could be argued that blogs themselves are an example of dialogue, rather than
information-deficit model communication. However, this would require two-way
interaction, which is not guaranteed. Comments and replies were recorded as part of
this study, but were highly variable from blog to blog. It was also difficult to separate
moderation from commenting, and it was not always clear if the moderator and the
author were the same person. Consequently this data was not used in the study. In
order to approach the question of communication models, comments and replies
need to be examined as part of the discourse in future research.
Climate Change Communication
Some scientists involved in this study were using their blogs to engage directly with
the public, as well as with other scientists. This is should be encouraging to those
calling for greater public engagement of scientists (Anderegg 2010; Moser 2010;
Fischhoff 2011).The number of non-scientists
writing about climate change science,
particularly deeply technical topics such as
climate models and temperature proxies, is also
in line with Kouper’s call for more non-scientists
blogging about specific scientific issues (Kouper
2010). This study included a small number of
scientific authors; there are thousands of actively researching climate science and
climate change scientists whose voices are silent in the blogosphere. The gender
divide is also pronounced; further study on gender differences in climate change
blogging is required.
Both scientists and non-scientists used their blogs as tools to criticise mass media
coverage of climate science. In this way, the blog became a way “tell the truth”
around an issue, as seen by that particular author. The blog was also used as a way
of transferring data and information about science as it is being conducted. Scientists
and non-scientists who were collecting and distributing data were using their blogs to
discuss science as it was happening, before it enters peer-review, after publication,
or before it is analysed. Authors could therefore solicit and collect feedback, criticism
and help from their readers, test out new ideas, and share data. This open approach
“From the evolution education controversy we learned long ago that one does not solve these problems merely by piling on more or better science: the underlying, motivating issues must be addressed. The science is essential, but not sufficient.” Blog 2, Author 103, 02042012-1
61
to conducting science could aid greater public understanding on the processes of
science as it is made (Gieryn 1999; Hulme 2009c).
No conclusions can be drawn as to how effective blogs are as climate change
communication tools. Though scientists may be trying to help the public understand
climate science and how it is made, these efforts may in some way undermine their
own credibility in the public sphere, as public perceptions of risk are inconsistent and
should be examined further (Hulme 2009a; Sonnett 2010).
Academic Communications
Blogs allow authors to use (and mix) grammar styles. Posts in this study were a mix
of first person narratives, journalistic-style articles, and third person scientific writing.
Formatting and colloquial language was sometimes used, which would be
inappropriate in an academic setting. Interestingly, academic style writing and
quoting of peer-reviewed literature was used frequently, which was interpreted as an
attempt to lend credibility and expertise to what was written. This will be examined
further in the Participants section.
Authors in the study also used posts to discuss literature as it was published, or
respond directly to criticism of their work. Is this because authors are unable to react
this quickly within traditional academic communication? It is a question worth posing
to authors in future research.
Discourse and Participants
This section examines how the discourse and those who are participants in it
influence each other, though the discourses and frameworks that have been
identified (see Table 9, p 49-50).
Credibility, Trust and Expertise
These three issues were incredibly fluid in the study period, but were underlying
many aspects of the discourse.
For example, the credibility of authoritative institutions such as the IPCC was
questioned due to lack of transparency by several authors. Additionally, finding flaws
and faults in the fourth assessment report, in the eyes of these authors, casts doubt
on its credibility and authority. This loss of trust and questioning of credibility applied
62
to individuals as well, notably Dr. Michael Mann, Dr. Phil Jones, Dr Peter Gleick, and
their respective academic institutions. Criticism flowed in the other direction as well,
in the form of questioning the objectivity, expertise, and the presence of “true”
scepticism.
One difficulty with the fluidity of expertise is the ability of those with opposing
viewpoints to discount an author’s supporting material based on their perspective, not
the author’s. Expertise, in this study, was largely attributed to natural scientists, not
social scientists. Expertise, however, does not equal trust—authors may choose to
trust different information sources (including and excluding scientists) regardless of
expertise. It is unknown how readers of blogs within this study determine trust,
expertise and credibility, which could be explored through qualitative interviews or
questionnaires.
The True Sceptic
True scepticism was identified as a discourse that had not been encountered in
previous studies (Table 9, p 49-50). A true sceptic, like false sceptics, may also be a
stakeholder in the issue, or affected by the consequences.
What makes a “good” or proper sceptic is a point raised repeatedly by scientists in
this study. From this perspective, those who call themselves sceptics are not truly so
because they fail to apply the same sceptical processes to all literature and evidence,
picking apart only those that disagree with their viewpoints. Scientists in this study
were also unwilling to accept criticism and evidence/arguments from sceptics unless
submitted to the peer-review process and held to the same standards of scientific
method. But some scientists, and many non-scientists, are distrustful of the peer-
review process, claiming censorship and exclusionary tactics keep “true” dissenting
views out. Thus there is an impasse—those who support traditional scientific
processes demanding that dissenting claims be subject to it, and those who believe
the process is inherently flawed and that their views will not be given proper
consideration. These views didn’t differ on the scientist/non-scientist divide and link
very closely with the other discourses. Current literature uses the term sceptic to
describe those questioning the consensus view on climate change (Antilla 2005;
Gavin & Marshall 2011; Whitmarsh 2011). If there is indeed a movement to reclaim
scepticism as a term and approach by science, it may create confusion. Worryingly, it
63
may also lead to more widespread use of terms such as denier and contrarian, which
are counterproductive and insulting stereotypes (Edwards 2012; Nielsen-Gammon
2012; Phelan 2012).
Secrecy and Censorship
Within this discourse, authors wrote of the need for open processes of science both
with other scientists and the public. Open access and sharing of data were
highlighted as concerns. Organisations in positions of authority should practice
transparency and be subject to scrutiny if their authority is to be accepted. Many of
the coded excerpts that relate to this discourse discussed the second release of
Climategate emails, which happened just before the study period began (Samenow
2011), and the transparency of the IPCC review process which was underway for the
fifth assessment report during the study (Ravindranath 2010).
Alluded to within this discourse are boundaries. The boundaries are drawn around
information and processes, and those who are allowed to participate in them. This
type of boundary requires mutual trust in how the science is generated and how it is
accepted by those outside of the processes (Gieryn 1999). A lack of trust was
already identified as a potential source of conflict; drawing boundaries of this type
may explain part of the difficulties in communicating climate change.
Life in the Open
Writing a blog may bring a writer positive and negative attention to their writing, work,
and personal lives. This consequence is part of the Life in the Open discourse. For
scientists in particular, engaging directly with the public has a perhaps unforeseen
consequence of the public demanding to be part of the scientific process. This is
particularly prevalent when the science is still science-in-the-making (Gregory &
Miller 1998c) when the scientist’s work is particularly high profile (Mann 2012a) or
doubts about credibility result in scrutiny of all subsequent work (Nerlich 2010).
The scientists in this study were concerned with what they viewed as attempts to
politicise, suppress, or dictate the teaching of climate science and the scientific
process. This is not the first time these concerns have arisen in science (Gregory &
Miller 1998b; Gieryn 1999) and further boundary research is needed.
64
Boundaries
Is science exclusive or elitist in its actions and language? It is an issue raised but not
addressed by this study. By drawing a boundary and placing critics outside it, are
scientists exacerbating a loss of trust and credibility? This calls not only for better
communication of climate and climate change sciences, but also examining the
workings of science itself (Anderegg 2010; Hulme 2010b; Souder & Qureshi 2012).
Boundaries surrounding expertise, participation, criticism, and decision-making were
fluid and diverse in this study, and need to be examined further before conclusions
can be made.
Communities
Thematic analysis does not lend itself to exploration of communities, which is better
served by Critical Discourse Analysis (Carvalho 2007; Johnstone 2008). However,
there was an interesting finding in the data involving the idea of community, in one
blog.
In the posts and comments, an active “community” of climate scientists is referenced,
suggesting they work together to suppress dissenting views and openness in science
within the peer-review process and the IPCC process. It is worth contrasting this with
the climate disinformation campaign discussed by other bloggers. Further exploration
using more appropriate methods is required.
These untrue statements by the university have contributed to widespread misunderstanding within the climate science “community” of the role of the alleged (and still unseen) “confidentiality agreements” in Jones’ obstruction of both ordinary requests for data and of requests for data under FOI. Author 119, Blog 6, 01032012-1
65
Conclusions
Climate change blogs are diverse, complex and variable. This makes drawing
conclusions difficult, but also makes the study of this discourse fascinating. In this
study, blogs were used to discuss climate science, weather, science communication,
scepticism, expertise, politics, and education (Table 6, p 42-43). Discourses and
frameworks were also identified (Table 9, p 49-50).
The study met its original objective of exploring and identifying of themes. In
particular, trust, credibility and expertise and true scepticism emerged as discourses
that may have implications for the role of science in society.
However, this study took place within a very specific timeframe and subset of blogs.
It would be interesting to explore these themes across different timeframes, blogs
and authors. The sampling method could have been improved by examining more
posts by each author. It would be worth looking at particular blogs and doing more in-
case analyses.
Motivations, while sometimes explicitly stated, were not clearly discernable from the
data. This question was not adequately addressed in this study, as the interview
component was dropped due to time constraints. Ideally this would have been
completed in order to answer the question, but will have to be addressed in future
research.
Interactions, courtesy and politeness were not addressed by this study. Further
research into the relationship between the blog post and the comments, between the
author and the commenters, would provide greater insight regarding motivation,
participation and purpose.
Discourse analysis and the inductive methodology chosen in this study in particular
were much more time-consuming than anticipated and, at the scale chosen, difficult
to execute in a part-time course of study. Nonetheless, the process itself was very
rewarding and has exposed the researcher to many new ideas, processes, and
perspectives. Questions raised surrounding communities, boundaries, and interaction
should be explored with more appropriate methods in future work.
66
References
Adger, W.N. et al., 2011. This Must Be the Place: Underrepresentation of Identity and Meaning in Climate Change Decision-Making. Global Environmental Politics, 11, pp.1–20.
Anderegg, W.R.L., 2010. The Ivory Lighthouse: communicating climate change more effectively. Climatic Change, 101, pp.655–662.
Anonymous, 2012a. BlogScope: analyze the blogosphere. BlogScope. Available at: http://www.blogscope.net/ [Accessed March 11, 2012].
Anonymous, 2012b. Membersthip of AGU. Available at: http://membership.agu.org/ [Accessed September 10, 2012].
Anonymous, 2012c. Republican primary candidates on climate change. San Fran-cisco Chronicle Online. Available at: http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Re-publican-primary-candidates-on-climate-change-3000298.php [Accessed Sep-tember 10, 2012].
Anonymous, 2011. state of the blogosphere 2011: part 2. Technorati. Available at: http://technorati.com/social-media/article/state-of-the-blogosphere-2011-part2/ [Accessed March 11, 2012].
Antilla, L., 2005. Climate of scepticism: US newspaper coverage of the science of cli-mate change. Global Environmental Change, 15(4), pp.338–352. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S095937800500052X [Accessed March 1, 2012].
Atran, S. & Axelrod, R., 2008. Reframing Sacred Values. Negotiation Journal, 24(3), pp.221–246. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2008.00182.x.
Bain, P.G. et al., 2012. Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change de-niers. Nature Climate Change, 2(4), pp.1–4. Available at: http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nclimate1532 [Accessed July 13, 2012].
Black, R., 2011a. Climate talks end with late deal. BBC News. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16124670 [Accessed September 10, 2012].
Black, R., 2011b. “New release” of climate emails. BBC News. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15840562 [Accessed September 10, 2012].
de Boer, J., Wardekker, J A & van der Sluijs, J P, 2010. Frame-based guide to situ-ated decision-making on climate change. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions, 20, pp.502–510.
Boyatzis, R.E., 1998. Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishing .
Boykoff, M T & Rajan, S.R., 2007. Signals and noise - Mass-media coverage of cli-mate change in the USA and the UK. Embo Reports, 8, pp.207–211.
Boykoff, Maxwell T & Boykoff, J.M., 2004. Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environmental Change, 14(2), pp.125–136.
Boykoff, Maxwell T. & Boykoff, J.M., 2007. Climate change and journalistic norms: A case-study of US mass-media coverage. Geoforum, 38(6), pp.1190–1204. Avail-able at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0016718507000188 [Ac-cessed July 28, 2012].
Brace, C. & Geoghegan, H., 2010. Human geographies of climate change: Land-scape, temporality, and lay knowledges. Progress in Human Geography, 35(3),
67
pp.284–302. Available at: http://phg.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0309132510376259 [Accessed June 21, 2011].
Carvalho, A., 2007. Ideological cultures and media discourses on scientific knowl-edge: re-reading news on climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 16(2), pp.223–243.
Cenite, M. et al., 2009. Doing the right thing online: a survey of bloggers’ ethical be-liefs and practices. New Media & Society, 11(4), pp.575–597.
Charmaz, K., 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory, London, UK: Sage Publications.Cohen, M.J., 2010. Is the UK preparing for “war”? Military metaphors, personal car-
bon allowances, and consumption rationing in historical perspective. Climatic Change, 104(2), pp.199–222. Available at: http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s10584-009-9785-x [Accessed October 19, 2011].
Collins, H. & Pinch, T., 1993. The Golem: What you should know about science 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Corfee-Morlot, Jan, Maslin, M. & Burgess, J., 2007. Global warming in the public sphere. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, pp.2741–2776.
Cresswell, J., 2009. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches 3rd ed., Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Demeritt, D., 2012. Construction of Global Warming and the Politics of Science. An-nals of the Association of American Geographers, 91(2), pp.307–337.
Demeritt, D., 2006. Science studies, climate change and the prospects for construc-tivist critique. Economy and Society, 35, pp.453–479.
Dickson, D., 2012. Developing world gains open access to science research, but hur-dles remain. The Guardian Online.
Edwards, T., 2012. The Sceptical Compass. All Models are Wrong. Available at: http://allmodelsarewrong.com/the-sceptical-compass/ [Accessed March 4, 2012].
Ereaut, G. & Segnit, N., 2006. Warm Words How are we telling the climate story and can we tell it better ?, London, UK.
Ereaut, G. & Segnit, N., 2007. Warm Words II : How the climate story is evolving, London, UK.
Eskjaer, M.F., 2009. Communicating climate change in regional news media. Interna-tional Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 1, pp.356–367.
Fischhoff, B, 2007. Nonpersuasive communication about matters of greatest ur-gency: Climate change. Environmental Science & Technology, pp.7205–7208. Available at: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es0726411 [Accessed April 9, 2012].
Fischhoff, Baruch, 2011. Applying the science of communication to the communica-tion of science. Climatic Change, 108(4), pp.701–705. Available at: http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s10584-011-0183-9 [Accessed April 7, 2012].
Gavin, N T, 2009. Addressing climate change: a media perspective. Environmental Politics, 18, pp.765–780.
Gavin, Neil T. & Marshall, T., 2011. Mediated climate change in Britain: Scepticism on the web and on television around Copenhagen. Global Environmental Change, 21(3), pp.1035–1044. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/re-trieve/pii/S0959378011000343 [Accessed August 24, 2011].
Gieryn, T.F., 1999. Cultural boundaries of science: credibility on the line, University of Chicago Press. Available at: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=GljD3CHbDx0C&pgis=1 [Accessed November 11, 2011].
68
Goldenberg, S., 2012. Climate scientist Peter Gleick admits he leaked Heartland In-stitute documents. The Guardian. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi-ronment/2012/feb/21/peter-gleick-admits-leaked-heartland-institute-documents [Accessed March 22, 2012].
Gottlieb, D., 2006. Ethics, media, and climate change. Abstracts of Papers of the American Chemical Society, 231, p.79.
Gregory, J. & Miller, S., 1998a. An ABC of Risk—Apples, Beef, and Comets. In Sci-ence in Public. Cambridge: Perseus Publishing, pp. 166–187.
Gregory, J. & Miller, S., 1998b. Case studies in public science. In Science in Public. Cambridge: Perseus Publishing, pp. 132–163.
Gregory, J. & Miller, S., 1998c. Media issues in the public understanding of science. In Science in Public . Cambridge: Perseus Publishing, pp. 104–127.
Gregory, J. & Miller, S., 1998d. Popular Science: Friend or Foe? In Science in Public. New York: Perseus Publishing, pp. 52–79.
Gregory, J. & Miller, S., 1998e. Popularization, Public Understanding, and the Public Sphere. In Science in Public. Cambridge: Perseus Publishing, pp. 81–99.
Hallegatte, S., Henriet, F. & Corfee-Morlot, J, 2011. The economics of climate change impacts and policy benefits at city scale: a conceptual framework. Cli-matic Change, 104, pp.51–87.
Hanselmann, M. & Tanner, C., 2008. Taboos and conflicts in decision making: Sa-cred values, decision difficulty, and emotions. Judgment and Decision Making Journal, 3, pp.51–63.
Held, D. & Hervey, A.F., Democracy, climate change and global governance.Held, H. et al., 2009. Efficient climate policies under technology and climate uncer-
tainty. Energy Economics, 31, pp.S50–S61.Henderson-Sellers, A., 1998. Climate whispers: Media communication about climate
change. Climatic Change, 40, pp.421–456.Henderson-Sellers, A., 2010. Climatic change: communication changes over this
journal’s first “century.” Climatic Change, 100(1), pp.215–227. Available at: http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s10584-010-9814-9 [Accessed March 11, 2012].
Herring, S.C., 2010. Computer-Mediated Conversation: Introduction and Overview. Language@Internet, 7. Available at: http://www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2010/2801.
Herring, S.C. & Herring, S.C., 2007. A Faceted Classification Scheme for Computer-Mediated Discourse, Available at: http://www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2007/761 [Accessed November 11, 2011].
Hoffman, A.J., 2011. Talking Past Each Other? Cultural Framing of Skeptical and Convinced Logics in the Climate Change Debate. Organization & Environment, 24(1), pp.3–33.
Hoijer, B., 2010. Emotional anchoring and objectification in the media reporting on cli-mate change. Public Understanding of Science, 19, pp.717–731.
Hookway, N., 2008. `Entering the blogosphere’: some strategies for using blogs in social research. Qualitative Research, 8(1), pp.91–113. Available at: http://qr-j.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/1468794107085298 [Accessed June 18, 2011].
Hsu, C.-L. & Lin, J.C.-C., 2008. Acceptance of blog usage: The roles of technology acceptance, social influence and knowledge sharing motivation. Information & Management, 45(1), pp.65–74. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/re-trieve/pii/S0378720607001255 [Accessed March 11, 2012].
69
Hulme, M, 2009a. The Communication of Risk. In Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 211–247.
Hulme, M, 2009b. The Performance of Science. In Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 72–108.
Hulme, M, 2009c. The Social Meanings of Climate. In Why We Disagree About Cli-mate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–34.
Hulme, M, 2009d. The Things We Believe. In Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 142–177.
Hulme, M, 2009e. The Things We Fear. In Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 178–210.
Hulme, Mike, 2010a. IPCC: cherish it, tweak it or scrap it? Nature, 463(February), pp.10–12.
Hulme, Mike, 2010b. Problems with making and governing global kinds of knowl-edge. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), pp.558–564. Available at: http://link-inghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0959378010000646 [Accessed July 17, 2012].
Irwin, A. & Wynne, B., 2004. Misunderstanding Science?: The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology, Cambridge University Press. Available at: http://books.google.com/books?id=M5gN-ku_yEkC&pgis=1 [Accessed November 11, 2011].
Jasanoff, S., 2010. Testing Time for Climate Science. Science, 328, pp.695–696.Jasanoff, S. & Wynne, B., 1998. Science and Decisionmaking. In R. Costanza & S.
E. Jørgensen, eds. Human Choice and Climate Change Volume 1 The Societal Framework. Elsevier, pp. 1–87.
Johnson, T.J. & Kaye, B.K., 2009. In blog we trust? Deciphering credibility of compo-nents of the internet among politically interested internet users. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(1), pp.175–182. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0747563208001489 [Accessed March 11, 2012].
Johnstone, B., 2008. Introduction. In Discourse analysis. Oxford ET - 2nd Edition: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 1–29.
Karl, T., 2012. Perspectives in Climate lecture, 25/6/12.Khan, M. & Faruque, O., 2010. Communicating climate change risks in a skeptical
world. iForest Biogeosciences and Forestry, 3(1), pp.153–158. Available at: http://www.sisef.it/iforest/?doi=10.3832/ifor0554-003.
Kinver, M., 2011. Shale gas drilling “contaminates drinking water.” BBC News. Avail-able at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13333473 [Accessed September 10, 2012].
Koteyko, N., Thelwall, M. & Nerlich, B., 2010. From Carbon Markets to Carbon Moral-ity: Creative Compounds as Framing Devices in Online Discourses on Climate Change Mitigation. Science Communication, 32, pp.25–54.
Kouper, I., 2010. Science blogs and public engagement with science: practices, chal-lenges, and opportunities. , 9(March), pp.1–10.
Lazarus, R.J., 2008. SUPER WICKED PROBLEMS AND CLIMATE CHANGE : RE-STRAINING THE PRESENT TO LIBERATE THE FUTURE. Cornell Law Review, pp.1153–1234.
70
Lee, N. & Lings, I., 2008. Qualitative Data Analysis. In Doing Business Research: A Guide To Theory. London: Sage Publications, pp. 231–259.
Lewins, A. & Silver, C., 2007. Using Software in Qualitative Research, London: Sage Publications.
Li, D. & Walejko, G., 2008. SPLOGS AND ABANDONED BLOGS: The perils of sam-pling bloggers and their blogs. Information Communication Society, 11(2), pp.279–296. Available at: http://www.informaworld.com/openurl?genre=article&doi=10.1080/13691180801947976&magic=crossref.
Li, J. & Chignell, M., 2010. Birds of a feather: How personality influences blog writing and reading. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(9), pp.589–602. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1071581910000522 [Accessed March 18, 2012].
Lorenzoni, I. & Hulme, M., 2009. Believing is seeing: laypeople’s views of future so-cio-economic and climate change in England and in Italy. Public Understanding of Science, 18(4), pp.383–400. Available at: http://pus.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0963662508089540 [Accessed March 15, 2012].
Macias, W., Hilyard, K. & Freimuth, V., 2009. Blog Functions as Risk and Crisis Com-munication During Hurricane Katrina. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communi-cation, 15(1), pp.1–31. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01490.x [Accessed July 5, 2011].
Mann, M., 2012a. The Hockey Stick and The Climate Wars: Dispatches from the front lines, New York, New York, USA: Columbia University Press.
Mann, M., 2012b. When you get your picture on the cover of... In The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines. New York, New York, USA: Columbia University Press, p. 143.
McCright, A.M., 2011. Political orientation moderates Americans’ beliefs and concern about climate change. Climatic Change, 104, pp.243–253.
McGraw, A.P. & Tetlock, P.E., 2005. Taboo trade-offs, relational framing, and the ac-ceptability of exchanges. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15, pp.2–15.
Miles, M. & Huberman, A., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis 2nd ed., Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Moser, S.C., 2010. Communicating climate change: history, challenges, process and future directions. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews-Climate Change, 1, pp.31–53.
Nerlich, B., 2010. “Climategate”: Paradoxical Metaphors and Political Paralysis. Envi-ronmental Values, 19, pp.419–442.
Nielsen-Gammon, J., 2012. Skeptics Are Not Deniers: A Conversation (part 1). Cli-mate Abyss. Available at: http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012/07/skeptics-are-not-deniers-a-conversation-part-1/.
Nisbet, M.C., 2009. Communicating Climate Change Why Frames Matter for Public Engagement. Environment, 51, pp.12–23.
Noble, D. & Bennett, T., 2007. CLIMATE CHANGE : A Wicked Problem ( Part II ). Municipal World, 11(Part II), pp.57–59.
Ockwell, D., Whitmarsh, L & O’Neill, S., 2009. Reorienting Climate Change Commu-nication for Effective Mitigation Forcing People to be Green or Fostering Grass-Roots Engagement? Science Communication, 30, pp.305–327.
Oreskes, N., 2011. Metaphors of warfare and the lessons of history: time to revisit a carbon tax? Climatic Change, 104(2), pp.223–230. Available at: http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s10584-010-9887-5 [Accessed October 16, 2011].
71
Peterson, E., 2011. How Conversational are Weblogs? Language@Internet, 8. Avail-able at: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-7-31201.
Phelan, R., 2012. Dr. Paul Bain Responds to Critics of Use of “Denier” Term. Watts Up with That. Available at: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/20/dr-paul-bain-responds-to-critics-of-use-of-denier-term/.
Pidgeon, N.F. & Fischhoff, Baruch, 2011. The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks. Nature Climate Change, 1(1), pp.35–41. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1080.
Ravetz, J.R., 2011. “Climategate” and the maturing of post-normal science. Futures, 43(2), pp.149–157. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0016328710002302 [Accessed March 11, 2012].
Ravindranath, N.H., 2010. IPCC: accomplishments, controversies and challenges. Current Science, 99, pp.26–35.
Samenow, J., 2011. Climategate 2.0: Do new emails undermine global warming sci-ence? Washington Post. Available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/climategate-20-do-new-emails-undermine-global-warming-science/2011/11/22/gIQArptGmN_blog.html [Accessed September 10, 2012].
Sanchez, J., 2012. Predatory Publishers are corrupting open access. Nature Online. Available at: http://www.nature.com/news/predatory-publishers-are-corrupting-open-access-1.11385 [Accessed September 16, 2012].
Shackley, S. & Skodvin, T., 1995. IPCC gazing and the interpretative social sciences: A comment on Sonja Boehmer- Christiansen’s “ Global climate protection policy: the limits of scientific advice.” Prometheus, 3780(95), pp.175–180.
Simon, N., 2007. Discourse in the Blogosphere. Museums Social Issues, 2(2), pp.257–274. Available at: http://www.museumtwo.com/publications/MSI_257-274_simon.pdf.
Snee, H., 2010. Realities Toolkit #10: Using Blog Analysis. Managing, pp.1–6. Avail-able at: www.manchester.ac.uk/realities.
Sonnett, J., 2010. Climates of risk: A field analysis of global climate change in US media discourse, 1997-2004. Public Understanding of Science, 19, pp.698–716.
Souder, L. & Qureshi, F., 2012. Ad Hominem arguments in the service of boundary work among climate scientists. Journal of Science Communication, 11(01). Available at: http://jcom.sissa.it/archive/11/01/Jcom1101(2012)A01/Jcom1101(2012)A01.pdf [Accessed April 2, 2012].
Spence, A. & Pidgeon, N., 2010. Framing and communicating climate change: The effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), pp.656–667. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0959378010000610 [Accessed March 25, 2012].
Srinivasan, U.T., 2010. Economics of climate change: risk and responsibility by world region. Climate Policy, 10, pp.298–316.
Stern, P.C., 2012. Fear and hope in climate messages. , pp.1–2.von Storch, H., 2009. Climate research and policy advice : scientific and cultural con-
structions of knowledge. Environmental Science & Policy, 12, pp.741–747.Tetlock, P.E., 2003. Thinking the unthinkable: sacred values and taboo cognitions.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, pp.320–324.Thompson, M. & Rayner, S., 1998. Risk and governance Part 1: The discourses of
climate change. Government and Opposition, 33, pp.139–166.
72
Trumbo, C.W. & Shanahan, J., 2000. Social research on climate change: where we have been, where we are, and where we might go. Public Understanding of Sci-ence, (9), pp.199–204.
Turnpenny, J., Lorenzoni, Irene & Jones, M., 2009. Noisy and definitely not normal: responding to wicked issues in the environment, energy and health. Environ-mental Science & Policy, 12(3), pp.347–358. Available at: http://linkinghub.else-vier.com/retrieve/pii/S1462901109000148 [Accessed March 11, 2012].
Wachman, R., 2012. Shale oil and gas will help make western hemisphere self-suffi-cient. The Guardian Online. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environ-ment/2012/jan/18/shale-oil-gas-us-energy-self-sufficient [Accessed September 10, 2012].
Wardekker, J. Arjan, Petersen, A.C. & van der Sluijs, Jeroen P., 2009. Ethics and public perception of climate change: Exploring the Christian voices in the US public debate. Global Environmental Change, 19(4), pp.512–521. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0959378009000648 [Accessed Au-gust 22, 2011].
Weber, E.U. & Stern, P.C., 2011. Public Understanding of Climate Change in the United States. American Psychologist, 66, pp.315–328.
Weingart, P., Engels, A. & Pansegrau, P., 2000. Risks of communication: discourses on climate change in science, politics, and the mass media. Public Understand-ing of Science, 9, pp.261–283.
Whitmarsh, Lorraine, 2011. Scepticism and uncertainty about climate change: Di-mensions, determinants and change over time. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions, 21, pp.690–700.
Wolf, J., Brown, K. & Conway, D., 2009. Ecological citizenship and climate change: perceptions and practice. Environmental Politics, 18, pp.503–521.
Wolf, J. & Moser, S.C., 2011. Individual understandings, perceptions, and engage-ment with climate change: insights from in-depth studies across the world. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews-Climate Change, 2, pp.547–569.
Yearley, S., 2009. Sociology and Climate Change after Kyoto: What Roles for Social Science in Understanding Climate Change? Current Sociology, 57(3), pp.389–405. Available at: http://csi.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0011392108101589 [Accessed September 14, 2011].
73
Appendix A
74
Table 10. Blog and author demographic information, including which authors posted during the study period, January to March 2012.
75
Posts in
study period
Blog
ID Blog title Blog URL
Author
ID Gender Location Occupation
0 1
Anti-Climate Change
extremism in Utah http://bbickmore.wordpress.com 102 Male North America Scientist
0 1
Anti-Climate Change
extremism in Utah http://bbickmore.wordpress.com 101 Male North America Scientist
12 1
Anti-Climate Change
extremism in Utah http://bbickmore.wordpress.com 100 Male North America Scientist
0 2 Real Climate http://www.realclimate.org/ 112 Male North America Scientist
0 2 Real Climate http://www.realclimate.org/ 111 Male North America Scientist
0 2 Real Climate http://www.realclimate.org/ 108 Male Europe Scientist
0 2 Real Climate http://www.realclimate.org/ 109 Male North America Scientist
0 2 Real Climate http://www.realclimate.org/ 113 Male North America Scientist
0 2 Real Climate http://www.realclimate.org/ 105 Male North America Scientist
0 2 Real Climate http://www.realclimate.org/ 107 Male North America Scientist
1 2 Real Climate http://www.realclimate.org/ 104 Male North America Scientist
76
2 2 Real Climate http://www.realclimate.org/ 106 Male Europe Scientist
4 2 Real Climate http://www.realclimate.org/ 110 Male North America Scientist
5 2 Real Climate http://www.realclimate.org/ 103 Male North America Scientist
3 3 The Carbon Brief http://www.carbonbrief.org 168 Female Europe Non-Scientist
11 3 The Carbon Brief http://www.carbonbrief.org/about 114 Male Europe Non-Scientist
13 3 The Carbon Brief http://www.carbonbrief.org/about 115 Female Europe Non-Scientist
17 3 The Carbon Brief http://www.carbonbrief.org/about 116 Female Europe Non-Scientist
197 4 Bishop Hill http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog 117 Male Europe Non-Scientist
12 5 Brave New Climate http://bravenewclimate.com 118 Male Australia Scientist
23 6 Climate Audit http://climateaudit.org 119 Male North America Non-Scientist
55 7 Climate Etc. http://judithcurry.com/ 120 Female North America Scientist
5 8 Climate Ethics http://rockblogs.psu.edu/climate/ 121 Male North America Scientist
5 10 Weather Underground http://www.wunderground.com/blog/ 124 Male North America Scientist
77
RickyRood/article.html
200 11 Climate Change Dispatch http://www.climatechangedispatch.com 125 Male North America Non-Scientist
62 12 Climate Science http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/ 126 Male North America Scientist
9 13 Climate Shifts http://www.climateshifts.org/ 127 Male Australia Scientist
9 15 ClimateSight http://climatesight.org/ 129 Female North America Non-Scientist
0 17
Errors in IPCC climate
science http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/ 133 Male Unknown Non-Scientist
33 17
Errors in IPCC climate
science http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/ 132 Male Unknown Non-Scientist
9 18
Global Warming: Man or
Myth? http://profmandia.wordpress.com/ 134 Male North America meterologist
4 20 Isaac Held http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog/isaac-held/ 136 Male North America Scientist
12 21 maribo http://simondonner.blogspot.com/ 137 Male North America Scientist
7 22 More Grumbine Science http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/ 138 Male North America Scientist
2 23 My view on climate change http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/ 139 Male Europe Scientist
78
17 24 open mind http://tamino.wordpress.com/ 140 Male Unknown Non-Scientist
1 25 Our Clouded Hills http://andyrussell.wordpress.com/ 141 Male Unknown Scientist
9 26 Roy Spencer, PHD http://www.drroyspencer.com/ 142 Male North America Scientist
2 28 Climate Lab Book http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk 144 Male Europe Scientist
0 29 Cliimate Resistance http://www.climate-resistance.org 146 Male Europe Non-Scientist
15 29 Cliimate Resistance http://www.climate-resistance.org 145 Male Europe Non-Scientist
4 30 All Models are Wrong http://allmodelsarewrong.com 147 Female Europe Scientist
0 32 Skeptical Science http://www.skepticalscience.com/ 160 Male Europe Non-Scientist
0 32 Skeptical Science http://www.skepticalscience.com/ 154 Male Australia Non-Scientist
0 32 Skeptical Science http://www.skepticalscience.com/ 152 Male Unknown Non-Scientist
0 32 Skeptical Science http://www.skepticalscience.com/ 159 Male Europe Non-Scientist
0 32 Skeptical Science http://www.skepticalscience.com/ 153 Male North America Non-Scientist
0 32 Skeptical Science http://www.skepticalscience.com/ 163 Male Europe Non-Scientist
0 32 Skeptical Science http://www.skepticalscience.com/ 162 Male Europe Non-Scientist
79
0 32 Skeptical Science http://www.skepticalscience.com/ 164 Female Europe Non-Scientist
0 32 Skeptical Science http://www.skepticalscience.com/ 165 Female Europe Non-Scientist
0 32 Skeptical Science http://www.skepticalscience.com/ 155 Male North America Non-Scientist
1 32 Skeptical Science http://www.skepticalscience.com/ 157 Male North America Non-Scientist
1 32 Skeptical Science http://www.skepticalscience.com/ 161 Male North America Non-Scientist
1 32 Skeptical Science http://www.skepticalscience.com/ 158 Male Australia Non-Scientist
5 32 Skeptical Science http://www.skepticalscience.com/ 151 Male Unknown Non-Scientist
6 32 Skeptical Science http://www.skepticalscience.com 166 Male North America Non-Scientist
9 32 Skeptical Science http://www.skepticalscience.com/ 156 Male Europe Non-Scientist
12 32 Skeptical Science http://www.skepticalscience.com/ 149 Male Australia Scientist
18 32 Skeptical Science http://www.skepticalscience.com 167 Male North America Scientist
24 32 Skeptical Science http://www.skepticalscience.com/ 150 Male North America Non-Scientist
80
Table 11. Authors ID table, listing their author numbers and blog numbers. This anonymisation was done to reduce bias, as the researcher was aware of certain authors.
AuthorsAuthor ID
Blog ID
B. Bickmore 100 1
B Dinklage 101 1
A Jorgenson 102 1
Gavin A. Schmidt 103 2
Michael Mann 104 2
Casper Amman 105 2
Rasmus
Benestead 106 2
Ray Bradley 107 2
Stefan Rahmstorf 108 2
Eric Steig 109 2
David Archer 110 2
Ray
Pierrehumbert 111 2
Thibault de
Garidel 112 2
Jim Bouldin 113 2
Christian Hunt 114 3
Robin Webster 115 3
Verity Payne 116 3
A. Montford 117 4
B. Book 118 5
S. MacIntyre 119 6
Judith Curry 120 7
R. Brown 121 8
E Happ 122 9
C Wolk 123 9
R Rood 124 10
Anonymous 125 11
Roger Pielke Sr. 126 12
Ove Hoegh-
Guldberg 127 13
David Levy 128 14
Kate 129 15
Tom Athanasiou 130 16
Paul Baer 131 16
Warwicke
Hughes 132 17
Douglas Hoyt 133 17
Scott Mandia 134 18
Mike Kaulbars 135 19
Isaac Held 136 20
Simon Donner 137 21
Robert Grumbine 138 22
Bart Verheggen 139 23
Grant Foster 140 24
81
Andrew Russell 141 25
Roy Spencer 142 26
Andrew Dessler 143 27
Ed Hawkins 144 28
Ben Pile 145 29
Stuart Blackman 146 29
T. Edwards 147 30
Roger Pielke Jr. 148 31
John Cook 149 32
Dana Nuccetilli 150 32
Rob Painting 151 32
Doug Mackie 152 32
Daniel Bailey 153 32
James Wight 154 32
Andy Skuce 155 32
Ari Jomaki 156 32
Robert Way 157 32
Glenn Tamblyn 158 32
Ricardo 159 32
Steve Brown 160 32
Michael Sweet 161 32
Neil J King 162 32
Höskuldur Búi 163 32
Jónsson
Anne-Marie
Blackburn 164 32
Barbel Winkler 165 32
Rob Honeycutt 166 32
John Hartz 167 32
82
Johnstone’s Heuristic—Questions arising from the data
Discourse and World
1. What, if any, metaphors are used, and how? Are any cognitive? How do they
resemble metaphors commonly used in climate science, environmental
policy, politics, and other discourse?
2. What is not said? What silences are noticeable? What do the blog authors
assume about the knowledge level of their audience? Whose work is
referenced, and whose isn’t?
3. Is the third person voice of science a silence or separation? How is this used
on blogs—as a method of displaying objectivity, authority and expertise?
4. Is ideology present? What values are invoked?
Prior Text, Prior Discourse
1. How is grammar used to presuppose ideas or imply structure?
2. Intertextuality—if present, how is it used?
3. What frameworks are used?
Participants and Discourse
1. Who writes climate change blogs? What motivates them?
2. How is power conferred? What is institutional, and what is situationally
negotiated? How is this unique in the blogosphere?
3. What communities are defined, by the authors? Are they consistent? How are
they defined?
4. If indexing is present, what phrases, structures and terms are used to identify
with a community?
5. How are authority and expertise identified?
6. What are the norms of politeness?
Discourse and Medium
1. How does the medium of blogging shape the discourse?
2. How is writing different (or similar to) other communication types?
3. How “planned” is the discourse?
83
Table 12. Matrix Analysis by scientist and non-scientist of the code How Science is Conducted. Blank cells indicate no conclusions for that particular question.
How Science is Conducted
Participants and Discourse Scientist Non-Scientist Emerging Themes
How do bloggers interact?
Who is an expert? Who
decides?
Titles and affliations to lend
crediblity, name dropping
How do authors refer to those
they view as experts and non-
experts? Titles and affliations
What boundaries are drawn?
The Scientific method and
objectivity
False objectivity, personal
motivations, false authority
Is the language inclusive or
exclusive?
Both; openness, explaining
science in the making, but also
unexplained terms and
acronyms and exclusive
language for those outside of sci
community
How do authors behave toward
others?
Discourse and Medium
What makes discourse on blogs
different?
First person narrative, no word
count restrictions, no editor or
review, plain language no censorship or exclusion Echoes and shouts
How do blogs differ from
traditional science
communication?
Speed of response to criticism
or scientific claims
Given a voice in debate, ability
to influence public
Turtle and Hare, David and
Goliath
What are blogs being used for in
science communication?
What communication models
are used?
How "planned" is the discourse?
Who writes climate change
blogs?What motivates them?
How are bloggers talking about
climate change? (frameworks
and values)
Table 13. Martix Analysis of the code Taking Action on Climate Change between Scientists and Non-scientists.
Taking Action on Climate Change
Participants and Discourse Scientist Non-Scientist Emerging Themes
How do bloggers interact?
Who is an expert? Who
decides? part of the scientific consensus
How do authors refer to those
they view as experts and non-
experts?
worried about the irresponibility
of blind trust of any info source
crossing the line between science
and advocacy science as truth-teller
What boundaries are drawn?
keeping politics out of science
education, but at the same time
despairing of the lack of
scientific rigour applied to
policy decisions; scepticism
outside of peer review is not
responsible science
Is the language inclusive or
exclusive?
How do authors behave toward
others?
opponents labelled as
contrarian, pseudo scientific, or
anti-science
Discourse and Medium
What makes discourse on blogs
different?
How do blogs differ from
traditional science
communication?
What are blogs being used for in
science communication?
criticism on inaction in the face
of the evidence which they view
as compelling
What communication models
are used?
How "planned" is the discourse?
Who writes climate change
blogs?What motivates them?
How are bloggers talking about
climate change? (frameworks
and values)
Energy (nuclear support,
subsidies), War rhetoric,
national security, energy
security, morality and
Christianity, pitting morality
against capitalism
energy,and the costs of
renewables, shale gas,
decarbonisation, war and
regulation as attacks, carbon as
pollution
Table 14. Matrix analysis of code The Role of Science in Society by Scientists and Non-scientists.
The Role of Science in Society and Society in Science
Participants and Discourse Scientist Non-Scientist Emerging Themes
How do bloggers interact?
Who is an expert? Who
decides?
someone familiar with the
scientific method and how to
apply it
those who are open and
transparent the real sceptic
How do authors refer to those
they view as experts and non-
experts? titles and affliations
What boundaries are drawn?
refusing to comment on policy
choices; scientist is a
messenger/truth-teller, cannot
be authority without
accountability, but who is
accountable to whom?Dangers
of ideology in science of any
kind; science alone can't inform
the decisions that need to be
made about climate change
science needs to be open and
transparent, but are the same
standards held up to those who
criticise it from without? Ownership of sceptic
Is the language inclusive or
are scientists responsible for
communicating to the public, or
exclusive—dismissing the debate
outside the scientific community
exclusive? is it the role of others? on climate change
How do authors behave toward
others?
denouncing ad hominem
attacks without evidence
Discourse and Medium
What makes discourse on blogs
different?
How do blogs differ from
traditional science
communication?
What are blogs being used for in
science communication?
risk perception and acceptable
risk, public perception of
science in the making
What communication models
are used?
still info deficit—that the rest of
the world needs to think like
scientists, apply sci method
How "planned" is the discourse?
Who writes climate change
blogs?What motivates them?
How are bloggers talking about talking about framing itself,
climate change? (frameworks
and values)
energy, public health and
development, ethics and
morality of climate change
positions
Table 15. Matrix Analysis of code Science Communication and the Communication of Science by Scientist and Non-scientist.
Science Communication and the Communication of Science
Participants and Discourse Scientist Non-Scientist Emerging Themes
How do bloggers interact?
Distributing, calling attention to,
discussing and encouraging the
reading of peer reviewed
papers
Who is an expert? Who
decides?
Institutions, peer-reviewed
scientists, true sceptics
those who are trustworthy,
credible, transparent, open
How do authors refer to those
they view as experts and non-
experts?
with their titles and affliations,
respectfully (to experts) and
casually to those who aren't,
calling those who they view as
opponents/dissenters anti-
science or contrarian Science as truth-telling
What boundaries are drawn?
what is objective science and
what is advocacy-the difference
between telling the whole truth
or only pieces of the story for a
desired end. Scientists telling
the truth. How open should
science be—and would more
The role of the scientist in sci
comms
openness regain public trust?
Science as an authority—
separate from society, to be
listened to and obeyed, without
input or transparency
Is the language inclusive or
exclusive?
both, depending on the topic
and author
How do authors behave toward
others?
attacking or rebutting the
media, don't have expertise or
knowledge, objectivity to
communicate science properly Science as truth-tellers
Discourse and Medium
What makes discourse on blogs
different?
everyone talking about how
science is done and
communicated, not just those
who study this
can question the science and
scientists directly, and publicly,
participate in a process that is
largely traditionaly vieled from the
public
How do blogs differ from
traditional science
communication?
An open, unmediated way to
discuss peer-reviewed science
in a much more immediate
context
What are blogs being used for in
science communication?
Science talk about peer-
reviewed literature, rebuttals to
media, education, truth-telling,
interaction and self promotion
argue for transparency,
debunking media coverage,
energy issues
wrong words, role of scientist in
sci comms, real scepticism
What communication models
are used? info deficit
How "planned" is the discourse?
Who writes climate change
blogs?What motivates them?
rebutting the media, standing
up to bullies, gaining a voice,
telling their version of the truth
How are bloggers talking about
climate change? (frameworks
and values)
Science literacy, fear of
suppression (democracy),
science as truth, war and battle
waste, energy, convenient
science
Table 16. Matrix analysis of code Personal expressions and connections by Scientist and Non-scientists.
Personal Expressions and Connections
Participants and Discourse Scientist Non-Scientist Emerging Themes
How do bloggers interact? linking, commenting
linking, commenting, encouraging
echo chamber
difference between what is the
blog post and what is in the
comments
Who is an expert? Who
decides?
Discounting the opinions and
credibility of others, debunking
positions
judging impartiality and
responsibility, objectivity, how
open and communicative they
are, open data access True sceptics
How do authors refer to those
they view as experts and non-
experts?
as non-experts, expressing
doubt, as being motivated by
other factors than the science,
demonstrating or stating
objectivity and willingness to
change opinion
openly doubting the motivation
and credibility of others, in
particular anyone involved with
Mann or Jones
What boundaries are drawn?
Fear of suppression and
influence of outsiders on
science, the known/unknown—
science in the making
Is the language inclusive or Sharing and educating Schoolyard tactics, such as
idiocy, lunacy, ridiculous to
exclusive?
describe the positions and work of
others
How do authors behave toward
others?
Frequent mentions of little time
—that we are privelged they
have taken time to
communicate with us,
encouraging the echo chamber
encouraging and participating in
the echo chamber, linking to
others in their community,
demonstrating they've been
thinking about their audience
Discourse and Medium
What makes discourse on blogs
different?
self-promotion and influence,
speed of response, echo
chamber
How do blogs differ from
traditional science
communication?
First person, Bayesian
judegements, direct interaction
and solicitation of readers
What are blogs being used for in
science communication?
What communication models
are used?
Traditional model of education
and sharing—info deficit.
Substitution of words/dumbing
down, leading to
misinterpretation? Eg.
Estimate/guess, uncertainty
How "planned" is the discourse?
Who writes climate change
blogs?What motivates them?
How are bloggers talking about
climate change? (frameworks
and values)
Christian love and duty,
Democracy and freedom,
fiction and storytelling
waste, convenient science,
Fiction and story-telling (using
myth, hoax, legend, storytelling
forms)
Table 17. Matrix Analysis of code Caution, criticism and scepticism by Scientists and Non-scientists.
Caution, Criticism and Scepticism
Participants and
Discourse Scientist Non-Scientist Emerging Themes
How do bloggers
interact? Active, first person voice, intertextuality direct quotes, first person
The voice of the
individual
Who is an expert? Who
decides?
How do authors refer to
those they view as
experts and non-experts?
Contrarian, naïve, climate denial machine, fringe-
lunatic-save-the-earth-by-killing-everyone-but-me,
climate alarmist machine
alarmists, fear-
mongering, green
propaganda, warmists
Owning the sceptic,
Death of objectivity
What boundaries are
drawn? the "community"
Secrecy and censorship,
the peer review impasse,
the True Sceptic
Is the language inclusive
or exclusive? Exclusive Excluded
Barriers to Common
Ground
How do authors behave
toward others?
False Civility and the
Commenter
Discourse and Medium
What makes discourse on
blogs different?
How do blogs differ from
traditional science post-postivist brekdown
communication?
What are blogs being
used for in science
communication? Cyber-bullying
What communication
models are used?
How "planned" is the
discourse?
Who writes climate
change blogs?What
motivates them?
How are bloggers talking
about climate change?
(frameworks and values) Waste
Waste, Convenient
Science
Appendix B
Table 18. Co-occurrence of codes, with overlapping excerpts included.
Cau
tion,
crit
icis
m a
nd
skep
ticis
m
Clim
ate
and
wea
ther
phen
omen
a
Clim
ate
mod
els
How
sci
ence
is
cond
ucte
d
How
thin
gs w
ork—
expl
anat
ions
Per
sona
l exp
ress
ions
and
conn
ectio
ns
Sci
ence
com
mun
icat
ion
and
the
com
mun
icat
ion
of
Taki
ng a
ctio
n on
clim
ate
chan
ge
Tem
pera
ture
pro
xies
and
reco
rds
The
role
of s
cien
ce in
soci
ety
and
soci
ety
in
Tota
ls
Caution, criticism and
skepticism 19 21 73 5 85 79 46 7 67 402
Climate and weather
phenomena 19 28 50 41 16 51 5 20 2 232
Climate models 21 28 92 53 29 42 10 23 18 316
How science is conducted 73 50 92 84 82 132 36 50 113 712
How things work—explanations 5 41 53 84 15 24 10 26 7 265
Personal expressions and
connections 85 16 29 82 15 102 45 10 66 450
Science communication and
the communication of science 79 51 42 132 24 102 86 31 105 652
Taking action on climate
change 46 5 10 36 10 45 86 98 336
Temperature proxies and
records 7 20 23 50 26 10 31 1 168
The role of science in society
and society in science 67 2 18 113 7 66 105 98 1 477
Totals 402 232 316 712 265 450 652 336 168 477
Table 19. Co-occurrence of codes, overlapping excerpts excluded.
Cau
tion,
crit
icis
m a
nd
skep
ticis
m
Clim
ate
and
wea
ther
phen
omen
a
Clim
ate
mod
els
How
sci
ence
is
cond
ucte
d
How
thin
gs w
ork—
expl
anat
ions
Per
sona
l exp
ress
ions
and
conn
ectio
ns
Sci
ence
com
mun
icat
ion
and
the
com
mun
icat
ion
of
Taki
ng a
ctio
n on
clim
ate
chan
ge
Tem
pera
ture
pro
xies
and
reco
rds
The
role
of s
cien
ce in
soci
ety
and
soci
ety
in
Tota
ls
Caution, criticism and
skepticism 14 14 61 2 65 68 33 4 57 499
Climate and weather
phenomena 14 21 39 34 6 43 5 19 2 196
Climate models 14 21 72 41 9 26 8 18 10 233
How science is conducted 61 39 72 67 64 110 27 43 95 638
How things work—
explanations 2 34 41 67 8 14 6 22 5 201
Personal expressions and
connections 65 6 9 64 8 80 30 7 52 375
Science communication and
the communication of
science68 43 26 110 14 80 73 28 91 593
Taking action on climate
change 33 5 8 27 6 30 73 80 291
Temperature proxies and
records 4 19 18 43 22 7 28 1 146
The role of science in
society and society in
science 57 2 10 95 5 52 91 80 1 443
Totals 499 196 233 638 201 375 593 291 146 443
Table 20. Matrix Anlaysis of co-occurring codes Taking Action on Climate Change and The Role of Science in Society.
Research QuestionsTaking action on climate change—The role of science in society Emerging Themes
How are blogs used to discuss and communicate climate change issues?
Who writes climate change blogs?
What motivates them?
"Political motivation for establishing a scientific consensus associated with a policy prescription, such as occurred in the context of the UNFCCC/IPCC, seems to me to provide grounds for non-experts to question the consensus." 120-7
questioning claims of objectivity and motivations of others
What values, frameworks, and worldviews are commonly used?
"To his credit, my old friend Kyle is quite up front and honest about his ignorance of climate change science, nevertheless he is inclined to trust the conclusions of the scientific consensus and support the urgent and coercive actions of the state to curb the carbon dioxide emissions of much of the industrialized world which would certainly lead to a catastrophic collapse of the global economy and a massive transfer of wealth into the hands of a very small club of billionaires who control most of the still highly ineffective, inefficient (and incidentally, environmentally destructive) “green jobs” technologies, all on the chance that anthropogenic global warming might be happening, and the even
State control, economy, waste
smaller chance that such drastic action might save us." 120-7
"Because these are ethical questions, they cannot be answered by an algorithm or a "value-neutral" scientific calculation." 121-8 ethics and morality
How are scientists using blogs to communicate about climate change issues?
"Before the technical potential of nuclear fission and complementary low-carbon energy technologies (renewables and fossil fuels with CCS), a scenario must be set against which plausibility and sustainability can be assessed objectively… The future energy mix scenario offered… should not be considered a prediction – it is better thought of as a ‘working hypothesis’… consistent with the projected demand… and IPCC greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets…"118-5
wider application of scientific method
discussing how models should be used in policy making, their limitations and abilities
"We look knowledge in the face and deny its existence. We make our convenient arguments for the need for more research in the ill-posed pursuit of the illusive final facts. We fall into the diversion-motivated process of always asking for the next piece of information in what can be a never ending series of information discovery."
what is information and what is knowledge?
124-10
How do bloggers decide credibility, expertise and trustworthiness?
"The conceit of the scientists — if that is what they really are — who have put their names under the letter to the Guardian is that their opinions, their prejudices, their politics are ‘science’." 145-29
questioning motivation, objectivity
How do bloggers draw boundaries with regards to science and society?
"This is a problem that some environmentalists generate, because they’re not willing to settle for partial solutions. The example I use is switching from coal to natural gas to generate electricity, which would eliminate 25 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, and by the way, the electricity would be cheaper."120-7
separation of science from environmentalism, partial solutions
"Climate science is warning us of dire consequences that could threaten the habitability of our planet over the next 100+ years. The science suggests that the changes might overwhelm our ability to adapt. But Wall Street, with its millisecond view of the market, quarterly earning statements and belief in infinite human adaptability, has no concept or ability to think 100 years into the future. Heck, we rarely even though 1 year into the future. And the Street certainly cannot imagine a future in which people (the best and brightest) don’t, somehow, come out on top." 100-1
Science as source of authority, questioning reasons for other "experts" to make opinions on climate change (economists)
Table 21. Matrix analysis of code co-occurrence How Things Work-Explanations and How Science is Conducted
Research Questions How things work—How science is conducted Emerging Themes
How are blogs used to discuss and communicate climate change issues?
explaining how the science works to a larger audience
Who writes climate change blogs?
What motivates them? The audience in this case would require a high degree of science literacy
What values, frameworks, and worldviews are commonly used?
How are scientists using blogs to communicate about climate change issues?
explaining how science is done as it's happening, and responding to new peer-reviewed literature as it is published.
way of breaking free of traditional science comms in peer-reviewed literature
How do bloggers decide credibility, expertise and trustworthiness?
How do bloggers draw boundaries with regards to science and society?
Table 22. Matrix analysis of code co-occurrence, Climate and Weather Phenomena and Science Communication.
Research QuestionsClimate and weather phenomena—Science communication Emerging Themes
How are blogs used to discuss and communicate climate change issues?
Who writes climate change blogs?
What motivates them?
What values, frameworks, and worldviews are commonly used?
How are scientists using blogs to communicate about climate change issues?
providing raw data or access to data and processes, updates on current research
open access, transparency
Drawing attention to peer-reviewed papers that the author finds interesting
sharing science openly, public access to science
How do bloggers decide credibility, expertise and trustworthiness?
How do bloggers draw boundaries with regards to science and
society?
Table 23. Matrix analysis of code co-occurrence for Caution, Criticism and Scepticism and Personal Connections and Expressions.
Research QuestionsCaution, criticism and scepticism—Personal expressions Emerging Themes
How are blogs used to discuss and communicate climate change issues?
"I hope that this hoax backfires on the person who started it. I hope it leads to even more donations to Heartland, which has played the role of David in its battle against the Goliath multi-billion dollar climate alarmist machine." 142-26 fiction, myth and legend
Who writes climate change blogs?
What motivates them?
What values, frameworks, and worldviews are commonly used?
"I will insert comments on what I see as the failure of portions of this solicitition to recognize the limitations of multi-decadal climate model predictions that I have posted on; e.g. see The Huge Waste Of Research Money In Providing Multi-Decadal Climate Projections For The New IPCC Report" 126-12
wasting research funds (on climate models)
"These BoM models are not worth a cup full of warm spit – yet the entire effort costs us $millions every year." 132-17
How are scientists using blogs to communicate about climate change issues?
interlinking and referecing other blog posts on the same topic as their post
How do bloggers decide credibility, expertise and trustworthiness?
"Moreover, until the models can show predictive skill of climate variability on yearly and decadal time scales, they should not be provided to the impact community as “reliable” predictions." 126-12
uncertainty; throwing baby out with the bath water
"I don’t necessarily agree with all the science and ideas presented there, but I would rather it be presented and discussed than be censored, which is the U.N. IPCC’s modus operandi." 142-26 secrecy and censorship
Expressing one's willingness to change should evidence present itself to falsify current position
claiming objectivity and true scepticism
"The conflating of installed capacity of windfarms with their actual output is an problem that has been repeated so often over the years that it is hard to accept it as an error any longer." 117-4
exhausting plausible deniability
How do bloggers draw boundaries with regards to science and society?
Table 24. Matrix analysis of code co-occurrence of Taking Action on Climate Change and Science Communication.
Research QuestionsTaking action on climate change—Science communication Emerging Themes
How are blogs used to discuss and communicate climate change issues?
"Also, sometimes, climate change policy advocates make assertions about likely impacts of climate change that display ignorance of climate science, such as the claim that everything is settled in climate science, a conclusion that is inconsistent with the fact that there are some scientific climate issues about which uncertainty is acknowledged by mainstream climate scientists." 121-8
convenient science, confirmation bias
Who writes climate change blogs?
What motivates them?
What values, frameworks, and worldviews are commonly used?
Though the warming of our climate is strongly linked to our burning of fossil fuels, there are many ways to achieve energy security and to develop alternative
energy that do not address the causes of global warming. The pursuit of clean energy depends on the definition of “clean,” and this word is easily co-opted by, for example, the reduction of mercury emissions from coal. Security and energy
How are scientists using blogs to communicate about climate change issues?
simplying what is known, and why we need to act, despite uncertainties
"What's more, researchers rarely have strategies for promoting their work outside the world of academia." 168-3
self-promotion, new methods of science communication directly with public
"Weather forecasting, in the hands of the press, has become a political science." 145-29 politicsing weather,
discussing the study of behaviour and other social science issues relating to climate change and taking action
How do bloggers decide credibility, expertise and trustworthiness?
" Milloy likes to label as “junk science” any science that leads to conclusions that might precipitate government regulations, but the fact is that he doesn’t have the expertise to understand the science he pans or the “alternative” science he promotes" 100-1 expertise
"But in part because of a concerted, well-funded, and aggressive anti-science campaign by climate change deniers and contrarians. These are mostly groups focused on protecting narrow financial interests, ideologues fearful of any government regulation, or
discrediting opponents
scientific contrarians who cling to outdated, long-refuted interpretations of science." 127-13
How do bloggers draw boundaries with regards to science and society?
Table 25. Matrix analysis of code co-occurrence, How Science is Conducted and Climate Models
Research Questions How science is conducted—climate modelsEmerging Themes
How are blogs used to discuss and communicate climate change issues?
the spreading of current climate model research and progress
the misuse of climate models for other purposes, well-intentioned or otherwise convenient science
Who writes climate change blogs?
What motivates them?
What values, frameworks, and worldviews are commonly used?
How are authors using blogs to communicate about climate change issues?
discussion of current studies in peer-reviewed literature, or of research they are pursuing, concerning climate models, problems and interesting findings.
trying to explain the information output by climate models in a useful form
transforming information in to knowledge
How do bloggers decide credibility, expertise and trustworthiness?
the difference between true scepticism in criticising models and their use, and otherwise motivated or false scepticism
taking ownership of scepticism
How do bloggers draw boundaries with regards to science and society?
discussion of the limitations and uncertainties of climate models
What role should climate models have in policy making?
Table 26. Matrix anlaysis of code co-occurrence, Science Communication and Personal Expressions and Connections.
Research QuestionsScience Communication—Personal expressions Emerging Themes
How are blogs used to discuss and communicate climate change issues?
making predictions on issues that will be hot topics for the year 2012-symptomatic of the new year starting during study period
opinions on what is newsworthy
Who writes climate change blogs?
What motivates them?
Asking readers directly to take action on a certain point-voting in a survey, providing a comment or feedback elsewhere, etc
interaction and engagement
What values, frameworks, and worldviews are commonly used?
How are scientists using blogs to communicate about climate change issues?
discussing discourse ocurring elsewhere that involves themselves, their colleagues, or persons of interest to them intertextuality
Placing themselves within events that are occurring, such as debates, or conferences, or media interviews
self-promotion, expertise, knowledge gathering
exhibiting their own style of climate communications, by starting a blog
traditional science communication failing
pointing out the bias and faults in others, both in blog posts and in traditional science comms
claiming true scepticism
countering the opinions of others that are expressed in the media or on blogs truth telling
How do bloggers decide credibility, expertise and trustworthiness?
Using personal experience and references to personal experiences to lend credibilty to opinions given in the post personal credibility
"He reminds us here of the key facts of the climate issue, which is useful in the face of having to listen to the endless ideological banter of non-experts with dodgy datasets." 127-13 expertise
"Enter climate science denier Anthony Watts whose blog has never missed an opportunity to smear a climate scientist. This morning, Watts posted about Mike Mann’s new book and within hours the Amazon reviews turned ugly." 134-18
using titles and affliations to discredit, accusations of attack
using discussions within comments sections for further blog posts
engagement and interaction
implying or stating that a person or source doesn't have sufficient knowledge to make any claims on a subject or be considered an expert.
How do bloggers draw boundaries with regards to science and society?
Table 27. Matrix analysis of code co-occurrence, Science Communication and The Role of Science in Society
Research QuestionsScience Communication—The role of science in society Emerging Themes
How are blogs used to discuss and communicate climate change issues? talking about discourse that is happening elsewhere
silences-where are the "consensus"? Not in the blogosphere…
Who writes climate change blogs?
What motivates them?
"I said to Peter Gleick that my aims were: to communicate my own research, because I am publicly funded, and because it gives the research greater exposure; to engage sceptics (see above!), and to practice writing for a general audience." 147-30
self-promotion, engagement, different writing style
What values, frameworks, and worldviews are commonly used? the scientist is the messenger, the observer of truth truth-telling
questioning the objectivity and role of the media and specific reporters
scientists have a moral and ethical responsibility to communicate the risks even when uncertainty exists morality and ethics
"Is it really necessary to be anti-science in general, and anti-climate science in particular, in order to be nominated to lead the Republican Party in the United States?"127-13
disagreement with consensus=anti-science
"If climate discourse is a street fight, then we need to do more than fight back. We need to learn how to take a punch." 137-21 battle and war
"Some people's aversion to science has become so acute that the prospect of a climate scientist writing a chapter about climate science in a book published by the academic press is cause for sending abusive and threatening hate mail." 149-32
worldview problems-disagreement with position=antiscience
"Any open and free democracy has to be based on true information and knowledge. When big and powerful media corporations start to look like past state-run propaganda machines, where slogans have replaced common sense and expert knowledge, then we’re heading in the wrong direction." 106-2 democracy and freedom
How are authors using blogs to communicate about climate change issues?
"Scientists would still be telling us that the Earth is warming, humans are causing it, and the consequences will likely be severe – unless we take action to stop it."
information deficit model
to encourage and desseminate climate change communication techniques as revealed by social science research
How do bloggers decide credibility, expertise and trustworthiness?
"So anyone who says otherwise is simply falling into the most basic trap that any under-graduate engineer or scientist is taught to avoid. Not using the correct system boundary! And if the person saying this is a professional scientist or engineer what conclusion can we draw from their opinion? That they are incompetent? Or…?"
worldview problem-science trumps all other reasons for scepticism
"Does that make them “wrong?” “Wrong” to you means “uncertain.” “Wrong” to public means “you don’t know what you’re talking about.” @flimsin: @PeterGleick Exactly – all the better to explain the difference. Better to improve scientific literacy than to patronise, I think." 147-30
interpreting words, distance between science and society
acting as true sceptics
"I've written and spoken about the need for humility among climate scientists and climate bloggers countless times in the past two years." 137-21
science alone isn't always the answer, need to look beyond
"Taylor's error-riddled article demonstrates that when it comes to climate science, we should listen to
expertise and influencing policy
climate scientists, who are true skeptics, rather than a law and policy expert from a fossil fuel-funded think tank."150-32
How do bloggers draw boundaries with regards to science and society?
That the public can't possibly take in all the information themselves; they need credible, trustworthy sources to believe, including climate scientists
"@richardabetts: @flimsin @ret_ward Be wary of advice “This might be misused by the sceptics” Start of slippery slope from objective science into advocacy."147-30
what is science communication and what is advocacy
speaking out leaves scientists open to criticism beyond the science they do, and open to attack
scientists need to support the teaching of good science
Table 28. Matrix analysis of code co-occurrence, How Science is Conducted and The Role of Science in Society.
Research QuestionsHow Science is Conducted— The role of science in society Emerging Themes
How are blogs used to discuss and communicate climate change issues?
Who writes climate change blogs?
What motivates them? criticising the IPCC for a lack of transparency, openness and objectivity
secrecy, objectivity, transparency
political or personal views may influence a scientist's research, as well as their willingness to share data openly
worldview-science is not detached
What values, frameworks, and worldviews are commonly used?
"This is simply not how science works. Almost all scientific conclusions are provisional, that is, subject to revision as the scientific process moves forward."
Worldview, science in the making
How are authors using blogs to communicate about climate change issues?
indicate areas of research that they feel are interesting and worthy of funding
science discussing economic impacts of climate change economy, waste
what areas of research should be funded waste
How do bloggers decide credibility, expertise and trustworthiness?
differentiating between what is "good" and "bad" science
normative judgements vs. following scientific process properly
"skepticism should be encouraged provided it plays by the rules of science." 121-8 Playing by the rules
making scientific claims that over-step the data or are unfounded undermines credibility
How do bloggers draw boundaries with regards to science and society?
scientists should communicate science clearly, that is their role in the policy process clear communication
if sceptics have valid claims they should test them via the peer-review process playing by the rules
That advising policy actions based on incomplete and uncertain science doesn't make the science bad—that the risks of not acting are worse than acting
communicating risk effectively
the extent to which climate models should be used in making policy decisions
decision makers should apply the scientific method, and scientific principles, to their decision-making processes
"Climate scientists, for whom any inherent doubts about the possible extent of human influence on the climate were overcome by years of training in physics and chemistry of the climate system, need to accept that there are rational cultural, religious, and historical reasons why the public may fail to believe that anthropogenic climate change is real, let alone that it warrants a policy response." 137-21 worldviews
policy makers and the public should listen to institutions that climate scientists belong to, and to researchers actually doing climate science credible experts
Table 29. Matrix analysis of code co-occurrence, How Science is Conducted and Science Communication.
Research QuestionsHow Science is Conducted— Science Communication Emerging Themes
How are blogs used to discuss and communicate climate change issues?
"So right from the start, the way the programme presents the debate does not accurately reflect scientific understanding of man-made climate change." 114-3
representing science accurately
explaining science as it happenssciencs isn't just facts but a process
dessimating the latest scientific results from peer-reviewed literature open access
Who writes climate change blogs? see quantitative descriptor data
What motivates them? encouraging people to read the scientific literature through links and excerpts scientific literacy
to better communicate science to the public, to give them the 'facts', to support scientists
mistrust of media to communicate science properly
using blog to highlight the author's work elsewhere self-promotion, publicity
that the language of science has hidden or implied meaning; scientists hide uncertainty, bias and flaws within the language
plain language of blogs, exclusivity of science
the majority of authors assume a high level of scientific literacy amongst their readers, judging by the complexity of the text, how terms are explained or how they are not explained. elitism?
What values, frameworks, and worldviews are commonly used?
"Because climate change impacts will never be fully predictable, insisting on absolute or very high levels of proof creates a burden of proof that can't be met. This is not reasonable skepticism but an ideological assumption that makes protective action impossible that is motivated by a need to avoid serious potential harm." 121-8
who is a true sceptic, good science
Discussion of how blogs are used as echo chambers, and how inaccurate information spreads quickly and is hard to refute echo chambers
that making claims that fly in the face of scientific evidence is unethical and has the potential to cause great harm
ethics and morality, secular vs sacred value
"Thus, some of the think tank conferences are a frontal assault on mainstream science." 121-8 war and battle
viewing the world as a scientist, not through other perspectives—possible confirmation bias in looking at climate change as a social science issue
worldview-post-postivist
"They suggest that the costs for the world could be over $100 billion USD by 2100 with a business as usual emission trend combined with the assumption of increasing demand for molluscs with expected income growth." 127-13 Economy
How are authors using blogs to communicate about climate change issues?
discussing and explaining results they've published in peer-review literature, making it publicly available open access to science
"These worries about potential catastrophic impacts are not hyperbolic, however, just because they are not proven." 121-8 explaining uncertainty
rebuttals and critiques of peer-reviewed literature, responses to comments made elsewhere by others
faster response than traditional science communication channels?
writing in an academic style with references credibility
dismissing scientific claims that have not been peer reviewed good and bad science
How do bloggers decide credibility, expertise and trustworthiness?
"Transparency is an important principle for promoting trust by the public, the scientific community, and governments." 119-6
openness and transparency
data is not to be cherry picked to make a point convenient science
providing evidence in support of any claims made, particularly in the media
referring to sources the author feels as legitimate with titles and affliations, not for those they do not agree with or are attempting to discredit expertise, respect
the responsibility of scientists, by the scientific method, to make their data available so that others can use it (replication, reliability, falsifiability) responsible science
"Refusing to consider a possibility which is inconvenient for one's pre-conceived notions and/or biases reveals a distinct lack of true skepticism." 150-32 who is a true sceptic
"It’s pretty clear — in fact it’s bloody obvious — the author simply applied an analysis method, misinterpreted the result, then concluded what he wanted to conclude for no other reason than that’s what he wanted."140-24
doing science, and communicating science, properly
How do bloggers draw boundaries with regards to science and society?
"The letter, entirely devoid of a scientific argument, uses scientific authority to make a political argument, and to close down debate." 145-29
authority without evidence, advocacy
"In fact, the scientific literature relevant to climate change is so voluminous and multi-disciplinary that very few people are knowledgable about that the breadth, scope, and extent of the climate science literature on which the consensus view is based." 121-8
access to information, expertise and knowledge, trust
"This is only true if it is taken to mean that climate skeptic bloggers and lobbyists are still arguing whether global warming is continuing. There certainly isn't a debate raging in the scientific community and the peer-reviewed literature." 114-3
Expertise, extolling the scientific method
"I am going to look at a few papers, in sub-disciplines of weather and climate, in which I am not expert. Hence, I am likely to make some mistakes, and I am hoping that doing this in public, motivates corrections of those mistakes. I take off down this path, because another thing I have discovered in the past seven years is that people who are not consummate experts in a subject are analyzing information and solving problems all over the world. And, I presume to imagine that I am more expert than most, and I presume to believe people when they tell me that I am reasonably good at translating information across discipline interfaces."124-10
expertise, role of expert, fluidity of expertise
"The absence of oppression and harassment is a prerequisite for sound and functioning science. Oppressive regimes are not known for producing good science, and blind ideology have often been unsustainable. Therefore, threats and such dishonorable campaigns represent a concern." 106-2
that attacks on scientists impede their ability to do science properly as it influences them negatively, and their communication of science
references to claims of corruption in science publishing and peer-review process, without evidence
using words like myth, hoax, disinformation, denier, lies, unfounded, so-called to indicate information or source is not credible
words associated with fiction
"Yet the consensus view discussed in the first part of the series is a consensus among research scientists that actually are engaged in climate change science and the most prestigious scientific organizations that have examined the relevant peer-reviewed science. The consensus position is the mainstream scientific view---- not the hyperbolic claims of environmental groups or others that support climate change policies." 121-8
those that actually do the science are credible experts