Climate change discourse in the blogosphere: a … · Web viewClimate change is a modern environmental problem that, were it not for science, would not be perceived by the general

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I certify that the work submitted is my own and that I have duly acknowledged any quotation from the published or unpublished work of other persons.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


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


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

http://www.climatediscourse.wordpress.com/

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?


Whose work is referenced, and whose isn't?


Who writes climate change blogs?

What do authors assume about the knowledge level of their audience?


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?


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?


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?


What phrases, structures and terms are used to identify with a commu-nity?


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.


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

http://www.dedoose.com/

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

http://climatediscourse.wordpress.com/

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


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.


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


12 1

Anti-Climate Change


0 2 Real Climate http://www.realclimate.org/ 112 Male North America Scientist


0 2 Real Climate http://www.realclimate.org/ 108 Male Europe Scientist






76

2 2 Real Climate http://www.realclimate.org/ 106 Male Europe 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/ 153 Male North America 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




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


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


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?


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?


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




decides? part of the scientific consensus



experts?

worried about the irresponibility

of blind trust of any info source

crossing the line between science

and advocacy science as truth-teller


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


exclusive?


others?

opponents labelled as

contrarian, pseudo scientific, or

anti-science



different?


traditional science

communication?



criticism on inaction in the face

of the evidence which they view

as compelling


are used?






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




decides?

someone familiar with the

scientific method and how to

apply it

those who are open and

transparent the real sceptic



experts? titles and affliations


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


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


others?

denouncing ad hominem

attacks without evidence



different?


traditional science

communication?



risk perception and acceptable

risk, public perception of

science in the making


are used?

still info deficit—that the rest of

the world needs to think like

scientists, apply sci method




How are bloggers talking about talking about framing itself,


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



Distributing, calling attention to,

discussing and encouraging the

reading of peer reviewed

papers


decides?

Institutions, peer-reviewed

scientists, true sceptics

those who are trustworthy,

credible, transparent, open



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 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


exclusive?

both, depending on the topic

and author


others?

attacking or rebutting the

media, don't have expertise or

knowledge, objectivity to

communicate science properly Science as truth-tellers



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


traditional science

communication?

An open, unmediated way to

discuss peer-reviewed science

in a much more immediate

context



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


are used? info deficit




rebutting the media, standing

up to bullies, gaining a voice,

telling their version of the truth



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


How do bloggers interact? linking, commenting

linking, commenting, encouraging

echo chamber

difference between what is the

blog post and what is in the

comments


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



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


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


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



different?

self-promotion and influence,

speed of response, echo

chamber


traditional science

communication?

First person, Bayesian

judegements, direct interaction

and solicitation of readers




are used?

Traditional model of education

and sharing—info deficit.

Substitution of words/dumbing

down, leading to

misinterpretation? Eg.

Estimate/guess, uncertainty






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


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


What makes discourse on

blogs different?


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?



"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


"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


"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


explaining how the science works to a larger audience


What motivates them? The audience in this case would require a high degree of science literacy



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



Table 22. Matrix analysis of code co-occurrence, Climate and Weather Phenomena and Science Communication.

Research QuestionsClimate and weather phenomena—Science communication Emerging Themes






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 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


"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




"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


interlinking and referecing other blog posts on the same topic as their post


"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


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


"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




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


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


" 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


Table 25. Matrix analysis of code co-occurrence, How Science is Conducted and Climate Models

Research Questions How science is conducted—climate modelsEmerging Themes


the spreading of current climate model research and progress

the misuse of climate models for other purposes, well-intentioned or otherwise convenient science




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


the difference between true scepticism in criticising models and their use, and otherwise motivated or false scepticism

taking ownership of scepticism


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


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



Asking readers directly to take action on a certain point-voting in a survey, providing a comment or feedback elsewhere, etc

interaction and engagement



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


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.


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…



"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


"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


"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


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



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


"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


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


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


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


"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?


"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


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


"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


"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

Documents

Climate change discourse in the blogosphere: a … · Web viewClimate change is a modern environmental problem that, were it not for science, would not be perceived by the general