New paper finds climate skeptical blogosphere is important source of expertise, reinterpretation, & scientific knowledge production
From The Hockey Schtick:
A paper published on April 5th in Global Environmental Change finds the climate skeptical blogosphere serves as an alternative network of scientific knowledge production, and “are key protagonists in a process of attempted expert knowledge de-legitimisation and contestation, acting not only as translators between scientific research and lay audiences, but, in their reinterpretation of existing climate science knowledge claims, are acting themselves as alternative public sites of expertise for a climate sceptical audience.”
According to the authors, “A network of 171 individual blogs is identified, with three blogs in particular found to be the most central: Climate Audit, JoNova and Watts Up With That. These blogs predominantly focus on the scientific element of the climate debate, providing either a direct scientifically-based challenge to mainstream climate science, or a critique of the conduct of the climate science system.
This overt scientific framing, as opposed to explicitly highlighting differences in values, politics, or ideological worldview, appears to be an important contributory factor in the positioning of the most central blogs.”
The abstract appears to be complimentary to the climate skeptic blogosphere as science-based sources of “expertise”, “scientific knowledge production”, and “reinterpretation”, as opposed to prior papers characterization of climate skeptic blogs as “deniers” of climate change and climate science.
 |
| WUWT is somewhere in the center there |
- •
-
The climate sceptical blogosphere is identified as a network of 171 blogs.
- •
-
An overt science framing appears to contribute to the most central blogs’ positions.
- •
-
The most central blogs may be seen as key nodes in an alternative knowledge network.
- •
-
They are alternative public sites of expertise for a climate sceptical audience.
Abstract
While mainstream scientific knowledge production has been extensively examined in the academic literature, comparatively little is known about alternative networks of scientific knowledge production. Online sources such as blogs are an especially under-investigated site of knowledge contestation. Using degree centrality and node betweenness tests from social network analysis, and thematic content analysis of individual posts, this research identifies and critically examines the climate sceptical blogosphere and investigates whether a focus on particular themes contributes to the positioning of the most central blogs. A network of 171 individual blogs is identified, with three blogs in particular found to be the most central:Climate Audit, JoNova and Watts Up With That. These blogs predominantly focus on the scientific element of the climate debate, providing either a direct scientifically-based challenge to mainstream climate science, or a critique of the conduct of the climate science system. This overt scientific framing, as opposed to explicitly highlighting differences in values, politics, or ideological worldview, appears to be an important contributory factor in the positioning of the most central blogs. It is suggested that these central blogs are key protagonists in a process of attempted expert knowledge de-legitimisation and contestation, acting not only as translators between scientific research and lay audiences, but, in their reinterpretation of existing climate science knowledge claims, are acting themselves as alternative public sites of expertise for a climate sceptical audience.
Jo Nova had a writeup about it last November while the paper was being submitted for publication, which is worth reading again.
From the paper:
Two tests for degree centrality (Freeman’s and Bonacich’s approach) were chosen as ‘very simple, but often very effective measure[s] of an actor’s centrality’ (Hanneman and Riddle 2005: 148). Freeman’s approach shows the centrality of a node based on its degree, that is, the number of connections a node has. In this case, the rating score represents the number of other blogs linking to that blog on their respective blog rolls.
The blog with the highest in-degree rating according to Freeman’s approach is Watts Up With That (WUWT), authored by California-based Anthony Watts, with 54% of the climate sceptical blogosphere linking to WUWT. WUWT itself claims it is the ‘world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change’ and the results of this test appear to support this assertion.
Freeman’s approach may also be used to analyse out-degree linkages, that is, examining which blogs’ blog-rolls are the most extensive. While out-degree score is usually seen as a measure of how influential an actor is in a network, in this case, a blog has no control over whether or not it is included in another blogs’ blog-roll. It is thus possible that out-degree score in the context of a blogosphere may instead be regarded as an indicator of desire to enhance the network, for example, by ensuring readers are aware that there are multiple other blogs that support the position of the original blog. Interestingly, only two blogs
show both high in- and out-degree linkages (WUWT and Bishop Hill). Tables 3 and 4 show the top 10 Freeman’s approach scores for in- and out-degree linkage.
An open access version of the paper is available here: http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/publications/WorkingPapers/Papers/120-29/Mapping-the-climate-sceptical-blogosphere.pdf
Given that it is from the Grantham Institute, I wonder how Bob Ward is taking the news?
On a side note, there’s no “network” of 171 blogs. We don’t have a group, guild, or any sort of organization. Her network claim is little more than an identification of like minded people that operate climate related blogs. And, I don’t think about the blogroll that much and I doubt it has the significance she assigns to it.
Even so, thanks for the props.
Although I don’t understand some of the scientific gobbledygook quoted here, it can be summarized as truthfully as this: Anthony, you are doing a great job presenting the other point of view on climate change, and a job of the highest integrity and scientific rigor in explaining the science of climate to ignoramuses like me in ways that we can honestly understand it and draw our own conclusions – even disagree sometimes in an honest way. As always, you deserve the highest praise for restoring some sanity to the public debate.
Keep up the great work!!!
It must be lovely to study and categorize these blogs from the outside. But I doubt these experts on other things will learn much about these blogs and their world until they personally engage with them, ala Judith Curry.
I like the conclusion that a focus on science keeps WUWT at the center !
Thanks Anthony for keeping up the good work & great science-focused content !
“This overt scientific framing, as opposed to explicitly highlighting differences in values, politics, or ideological worldview, appears to be an important contributory factor in the positioning of the most central blogs.”
Wow – Science. Who’d a thunk it?
Thanks, guys. Now try telling all of us who read this blog something we don’t already know.
(although I suppose this will make Joe Romm swallow his tongue)
Congrats to the WUWT team! Peer reviewed no less…Mann and Lew will have to be restrained and placed in the rubber room.
@wws – I’d hazard a guess that you are currently unaware that the temperature in Tiksi is currently around 0 °C?
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/04/the-arctic-sea-ice-recovery-vanishes-even-more/
Describing 171 unrelated blogs as a ‘network’ says much about the authors of the paper. It implies that they cannot concieve of those blogs arising independently and spontaneously.
Yeah, good, but let’s add the visits by all the main proponents of CAGW. WUWT is indeed a central source. Many of these proponents have been invited to put articles on WUWT to argue their positions. It hasn’t happened much but I foresee this becoming a new development of this blog. There can be little doubt that the new “discoveries” of CAGW proponents of natural variability, the ocean oscillations, solar, etc. where purloined from such as WUWT. Willis E’s stuff I’m sure is going to generate new “discoveries” to replace the patched up failures that abound.
Snow White says:
April 9, 2014 at 6:54 am
“@wws – I’d hazard a guess that you are currently unaware that the temperature in Tiksi is currently around 0 °C?”
Run for the hills! Even worse:
The song of the whistling cave frog has changed in the past decades, becoming more high-pitched due to Climate Change, US biologists say.
German article
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/klimawandel-froesche-quaken-in-hoeheren-toenen-a-963336.html
We’re doomed.
Ooo… How come there’s no RealClimate in the top group?
“The abstract appears to be complementary to the climate skeptic blogosphere[…].”
Complementary? Or Complimentary? (Could be either I suppose.)
@Snow White says: April 9, 2014 at 6:54 am
I think you are totally un-aware that this web site is the global go to web site for sea-ice reference and there isn’t a lot of guessing goes on here, just the facts.
Wow ! It almost reads like a targeting exercise. As in “…here’s the list of the main skeptical sites we go after. ”
I’ve noticed a trend where if the AGW crowd can’t make an argument against the data , they attack the reseachers themselves. Claiming said researchers and reporters are, to quote : paid shills, trolls, Koch Bros. funded, Heartland advocates, or Big Energy mouthpieces.
It’s never a view that the data is debatable, but rather that theirs is the only viewpoint acceptable and how dare you question it.
Is there some supplemental information somewhere? I’d like to see where Jeff Id’s blog and Lucia’s placed.
So glad I found you guys and gals. Keep up the good work!
This paper misses the point.
Someone has to try and keep climate scientists honest, as they certainly are not going to police themselves. Heaven only knows how many times that has been demonstrated.
The likes of WUWT, Jo Nova and Climate Audit are loathed and despised by the Global Warming Industry, which does [not] like being called to account, audited or exposed for what it really is.
I haven’t seen anything anywhere that can hold a candle to WUWT reference pages for a quick climate overview. Turns Greens Red with envy.
Amelia Sharman wrote:
“. . . for a climate sceptical audience.”
There is a bit of lazy writing here. The skeptical audience is skeptical of the “we are doomed” (catastrophic or little c in cAGW) claims and likewise of the “CO2 is the cause” settled pseudo- “science.”
However, like gravity, climate is something we try to deal with even though there are Rumsfeld Unknowns about both.
————-
wws says at 6:43 — “Now try telling all of us who read this blog something we don’t already know.”
I agree.
TG:
Why would you expect RealClimate to feature?
The paper considers that what it calls the Central Blogs are “key protagonists in a process of attempted expert knowledge de-legitimisation and contestation”. I think RealClimate do not contest the IPCC position. The paper goes on to state:
“acting not only as translators between scientific research and lay audiences, but, in their reinterpretation of existing climate science knowledge claims, are acting themselves as alternative public sites of expertise for a climate sceptical audience.”
Which shows what a good job they must be doing, as you did not bother to even read the abstract of the paper that was being discussed before you posted your comment.
Chris B wrote: “Turns Greens Red with envy.”
Actually, the Greens were Red first and it isn’t “envy” — there are facts in the reference pages they don’t want anyone to know.
Perhaps, the facts turn them black with fury.
Regardless of all the talk about “big oil (money)” supporting skeptics, the opposite case is far more true.
There is a small coterie of paid spokesmen, “Media Consultants” and “Public Relations” types, who have created much of the familiar and most repeated rhetoric supporting the warmist cause. There aren’t too many of them, but their presence is seen in blogs and comment sections across the internet and in the rationalizations which seem to spread like wildfire throughout a supportive international media.. Their words are polished, but usually logically unsupportable, or just plain untrue. In other words, they are paid to lie about climate science and paid to mount defamatory campaigns against alternative points of view.
Here’s a sample thread from another site, where at least two paid propagandists appear and one of them freely admits his role- hint: readers may remember his name from the Chris Turney/Akademik Shokalskiy affair, as this person was trying to provide considerable cover to Turney:
http://retractionwatch.com/2014/04/04/journal-that-retracted-conspiracy-ideation-climate-skepticism-paper-says-it-did-not-cave-into-threats/#comment-89447
“Given that it is from the Grantham Institute, I wonder how Bob Ward is taking the news?”
Given the differences between the two abstracts, I wouldn’t be surprised if Bob Ward was one of the reviewers.
I guess network would be a technical word for an network of Internet interactions. The paper is not implying that skeptics form a cabal or anything.
This seems to be a correction of the 2013 paper by the same title.