From the thanks for painting a target on my back department comes word of a new paper that attempts to figure our the mapping of the climate skeptic blogosphere.
Bishop Hill writes:
Readers may remember Amelia Sharman as one of the authors of the “Entrepreneur” paper, about the disreputable shenanigans that led to the EU’s biofuels mandate.
Amelia is now in the midst of a PhD looking at global warming sceptics and has just published a working paper, describing the results of a social network analysis of sceptic blogs.
The paper abstract is (full paper link follows):
==============================================================
Title: Mapping the climate sceptical blogosphere
Author: Amelia Sharmanab
Affiliation: a Department of Geography and Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment
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, and appear to be less preoccupied with other types of scepticism that are prevalent in the wider public debate such as ideologically or values-motivated scepticism. It is possible that these central blogs in particular are not only acting as translators between scientific research and lay audiences, but, in their reinterpretation of existing climate science knowledge claims, are filling a void by opening up climate science to those who may have been previously unengaged by the mainstream knowledge process and, importantly, acting themselves as public sites of alternative expertise for a climate sceptical audience.
==========================================================
The full open access paper can be seen here.
There is only one little fatal mistake IMHO on sentence one of the paper:
Evidence supporting the reality of climate change and its anthropogenic cause is overwhelming in the peer-reviewed literature (J. Cook et al. 2013; Doran and Zimmerman 2009).
Apparently she’s not following just how messed up the Cook et al. paper is. Maybe she and Dr. Richard Tol can talk.
This made me laugh:
While the academic literature to date has focused on the manifestation of climate scepticism in mainstream media forums (Boykoff 2007; Schmidt et al. 2013), little work has been done to understand why climate sceptical blogs exist and what their role may be as public sites of knowledge contestation.
She has no idea why we exist? Better not tell her then, its a big Exxon-Mobil trade secret /sarc. Or, maybe she can ask her Grantham Institute co-worker and ex punk rocker Bob Ward, who I’m sure has an opinion about the matter.
On the plus side, there is this:
Table 7 shows that WUWT is an extremely central node according to this test. The results of this test are interpreted against the mean betweenness score. WUWT has a score of 3971.52, significantly higher than the mean score of 180.31. As anticipated, there was a large overlap between the results for this test and those for Freeman’s in-degree centrality, with six blogs appearing in both sets of results. Accordingly, Climate Audit, ICECAP, JoNova and No Frakking Consensus also join the short-list of the most central blogs.
I think the mean score of 180.31 is a typo, likely 1800 and change.
…
WUWT is an extremely prolific blog, with 190 posts for March 2012 alone; however, the posts analysed had several reoccurring sub-themes under the overall category of science, with a predominant interest in alternative explanations for climate models, temperature data or human-induced climate change, largely in the form of scientifically-based challenges to published science.
The conclusion is also interesting, an excerpt:
The most noteworthy finding of this research however is that the blogs identified as the most central predominantly focus on the scientific element of the climate debate. Within this overall focus, providing a direct scientifically-based challenge to mainstream climate science, or a critique of the conduct of the climate science system (such as individual climate scientists’ actions or institutional decision-making) appear to be particularly important themes. As highlighted above, the direct scientific challenge that the climate sceptical blogosphere provides may be thought of as either trend or attribution scepticism (Rahmstorf 2005). The blogosphere’s focus on the scientific element of climate scepticism is important because it stands in direct contrast to research carried out among the general public, where the prevalence of trend and attribution scepticism is low compared to other types of scepticism, such as scepticism regarding the need for mitigation policies (Akter et al. 2012). This result also contradicts claims that climate science is ‘adrift in the blogosphere’ (Schäfer 2012: 529) because even though few climate scientists themselves blog—and are suggested to mainly focus on addressing the “pseudoscience” implied as existing within the climate sceptic blogosphere (Schäfer 2012)—this does not mean that science itself is not an active topic of discussion.
Still, that won’t stop climate zealots like Joe Romm and others from claiming WUWT and other skeptical blogs are “anti-science”, since that’s a convenient label for them to pitch to their low-information readers.
As always, thanks to my contributors, readers, and moderators for helping to put WUWT at the center of the climate blogosphere.
What is this need for “academics” to label everybody? Why the need to devise an ever changing “new” system of boxes into which to place people?
Smacks of insecurity, go give yourself a label, I am secure in not having the need for one!
I am not a number, I am a free man!
If she accepts at face value the Lewadowsky/Cook scam, what is the point of her paper other than to help deceitful AGW [promoters]?
Nice one Jimbo. And further to Tom in Florida’ comments US readers may need reminding that the LSE are the mob that took Gadaffi money seemingly in exchange for accepting his son into a course – such are their standards. “…knowledge contestation. Using degree centrality and node betweenness tests …”. Wish I’d said that through a mouthful of marbles and cannot wait to use in my next Understanding English curriculum if only I knew what it meant.
Dave says:
September 9, 2013 at 2:37 pm
I’m a PhD candidate and have been running numerical simulations on material behavior for the past 25 months and I have at least one more month to go before I’m done.
Dave! David, DAVY, my Man! Please, you reek of “Engineer” all over. Don’t try to pull the wool over our eyes. You would be LAUGHED out of the “Orals” if you went in JUST with the numerical simulations. I’d bet REAL MONEY that you have a bunch of ACTUAL TEST DATA on real materials to compliment the “numerical simulations”. You see, you naughty boy, you’d be ashamed to “show your face”, publishing something merely based on “numerical simulations”. You will NEVER be able to be a “hoity toit scientist”. I banish you to a life of making SIGNIFICANT contributions to the betterment of humankind, for having such an obstinate attitude. I hope you feel appropriately chastened!
Hmm, how exactly is this paper worthy of PHD work?
As the owner/blogger of the GORE LIED blog I can’t for the life of me figure out why my blog scored so highly in this study since I haven’t posted anything new in over a year and a half, and stopped posting regularly over a year before that. The only reason I might be included is that my blog had one of the longer blog rolls in the skepticsphere, and I did note that “blogroll” was mentioned in the Table 7 that Anthony included.
For those wondering, I’m a non-scientist citizen who blogged regularly while I suffered through the Great Recession, but who after about four years of blogging found out that I’d said most of what I wanted to say – so I moved on (while continuing to pay my hosting fees). I did enjoy some measure of success, and Anthony even linked to me a couple of times, including for a Quote of the Week. 🙂
Anyway, since I’ve not posted new content in a long time, my traffic has gone down to almost nothing. For example, I just logged-in to my blog’s Admin for the first time in a long time and I see that in the last week I’m averaging only a little over 50 hits a day since I’ve got stale links and no new content lately that would keep me relevant on Google.
In conclusion, I think that my blog’s inclusion in this paper is evidence that this paper is crap.
(NOTE: By the way, I’d sell my blog/domain for very little money to any person if I was convinced that person had the right stuff to carry on.)
This is an essay entered into the Bulwer Lytton prize competition, isn’t it ?
I mean that gobbledegook abstract above.
Well as they say, doing a PhD teaches you more and more about less and less.
Valid data Reg!
I was thinking along similar lines, only I was wondering just how many of the ‘climate team’ who might have told Amelia Sharman that they don’t or rarely blog; but regularly show up here or at other of the top ten sites and Lucia’s to ‘blog’ anonymously. Seems they’re trying to tilt the apparent climate blogosphere as being the domain of the otherwise employed instead of the failure of the pro AGW web sites.
It’s getting so even budding PhDs seeking real life data on climate science are lied to by the CAGWers.
I thought about getting a PhD; in Ice cream Making; But then I found out I could walk into a shop, and buy 57 varieties of ice cream; one for each State in the Union. And according to my research, 97% of those taste pretty good.
Max, I do indeed feel chastened! Unlike the models constructed by the global warming enthusiasts, I validate my candidate models by using them to make predictions based upon independent environmental data (i.e., data not used for model calibration). After such predictions are made, I then make statistical comparisons to test measurements in order to ascertain accuracy. You are right… had I not used this approach and tried to simply present models/predictions at my oral defense, I would undoubtedly be laughed out of the room. But in reality, this would never happen. My advisor will make the decison as to when I’m ready for my oral defense and he won’t let me attempt to defend the indefensible.
The pseudo-sciences should adopt such practices…
“”””””……..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……””””””
So this is “abstract” in the Picasso sense; except with random words, rather than shapes and colors.
Congrats, Anthony; and congrats also to the many co-bloggers whose excellent comments and threads find a home on WUWT. I think Sharman is wandering close to enlightenment when she says this. Certainly it’s true for me; I’ve learned a great deal by reading here, and at JoNova’s blog, and Climate Audit, ICECAP, Bishop Hill; and many more:
“It is possible that these central blogs in particular are not only acting as translators between scientific research and lay audiences, but, in their reinterpretation of existing climate science knowledge claims, are filling a void by opening up climate science to those who may have been previously unengaged by the mainstream knowledge process and, importantly, acting themselves as public sites of alternative expertise for a climate sceptical audience.”
A “Betweenness Node” is an Oxymoron, isn’t it ?
Read the following from the Guardian:
Yet we are called “anti-science”. Far from it, we insist on the science, observations and less on emotions and polar bear cubs.
Most important conclusion is that there is recognition that this blog & those who contribute are focused on science. After all, this is supposed to be a scientific debate, right ? So, warmists, bring us your science, not your politics , & let’s hash this out – that is if you are actually interested in science & not politics.
Roy, I call them opinion PhDs. If you have the right opinion, you get a Phd. There are now so many “X Studies” departments, that you can get a Phd for your opinion in almost anything.
We come here to explore the truth.. What bothers me is they are starting to model the people who oppose their views.. Just like the climate, through understanding comes control.. Your politics, point of view and science run through a smoothing curve.. Not to enhance your words but to put words in your mouth..
I wouldn’t give them the time of day.. The WUWT science factory can speak for itself, If your intelligent enough to follow what all these smart men and women are talking about.. Your already in the door..
I bet hard core warmists sneek in here to up their game 🙂
Jimbo says:
September 9, 2013 at 2:10 pm
….little work has been done to understand why climate sceptical blogs exist…
“I will save you the bother of work. Climate sceptical blogs exist because a combination of greens, politicians and the media decided for themselves that the debate was over. They then proceeded to shut out sceptical climate scientists, block their papers, tried to sack journal editors, deleted FOIA emails, fabricated hockey sticks and smear them as cranks and shills of oil.
The debate has never been over, the science has never been settled. The debate is only hotting up now as a raft of papers lowers climate sensitivity and the temperature hiatus can no longer be ignored.”
No doubt that Amelia Sharmanab will read the thread on this post. Great summation on why climate sceptical blogs exist. I hope she reads your post Jimbo. (she is probably a closet WUWT reader as someone else already stated).
Mods…
Re my last comment, I just realized something I said might be taken literally. I was speaking figuratively, but should have been more careful….
WUWT? engages in something unfamiliar to many other blogs, particularly pro-AGW blogs. Freedom of speech. What patrons have to bear in mind, is that although you are allowed to speak freely, you must also be accurate and be prepared to defend that which you post. Perhaps this idea is lost on Amelia Sharman.
Congratulations to Anthony on his betweenness node centrality. I’ve always wanted one of those – at least, I think I have.
In fact the paper is very complimentary about the science-based, prejudice-free environment here at WUWT, and that’s a great tribute to Anthony’s calm vision. Three cheers for him, and for Climate Audit and Jo Nova too.
Pathway …
WUWT probably has more people who are actively engaged in science or have worked in science research than any other forum.
NOW .. this would be an interesting poll to take on WUWT patrons. I wonder just how many of the readers have indeed published. I know of a few, some of the “Household” names … but that would be an interesting little exercise to define the quality of the readership of WUWT.
Since my earlier comment does not appear here, I’m trying to post a short comment (as Anthony suggests in the FAQs) to see if I’ve been blocked by mistake.
On another note … EVERY ALARMISTS .. who’s material is lucky enough to make it to WUWT, should personally thank Anthony.
I mean .. really, just how much exposure would most of this garbage get if not for WUWT and other Skeptic Blogs serving as a post-it board. I’ve never heard of this chick until now.
I think she’s missing some data here. Her survey discovered only 171 skeptic blogs, but the record for Watts Up With That? on the blog tracking site Blogshares (http://www.blogshares.com/blogs.php?blog=http%3A//wattsupwiththat.com/) shows 421 incoming links when last updated in July. Is she missing a significant portion of the population in her sample by only considering the blog rolls?
Anthony – I maintain Blogshares and am willing to pull further data if you are interested.