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.
Dr. Deanster says:
September 9, 2013 at 4:14 pm
NOW .. this would be an interesting poll to take on WUWT patrons. I wonder just how many of the readers have indeed published.
—————————————–
Count me in as one who is published in peer review literature
Susan P says:
September 9, 2013 at 1:22 pm
… I have to get to work calculating my Betweenness Scores for my PhD thesis on which cute cat/cute dog videos provide the most laughter and enjoyment/life enhancement per minute spent watching.
Can I get a copy of your paper when your done? 🙂
Oops, grammar! (previous post) your = you’re
When I hear suggestions that PV is economical, I have to wonder if the author is in-bed with the industry. We see claims of a Er/Ei of 6 given by the manufacturers but when those not in the industry crunch the numbers, the Er/Ei is less than one. That means that any battery used to store energy only contributes to the negative ROR of this form of sustainable energy production.
Why do climate blogs exist?
She’ll need to ask the bloggers.
Why are they read?
Individuals will have their own reasons.
Perhaps a topic for another poll?
A few possible answers:
“I don’t believe the science is settled”
“To learn more on the topic.”
“I don’t trust the politics involved.”
“To let off some stream.”
“To add my 2 cents.”
“Al Gore”
“All of the above.”
I’m sure the readers could add more suggestions.
The better title for her first paper about corrupt alternative fuel industry would have been “Profiteer”. While the author is doing some network analytics, she is not willing to look at the reality of the matter: Skeptics are on the right side of this matter.
Dr. Deanster: knowing how many here have been published would be interesting, but I think you need to define what you mean by ‘published’. I have been published in the proceedings of technical conferences, but that’s a far cry from a published paper in a peer-reviewed, scientific journal. OTOH, I’ve seen better researched-based work published in such venues as the Optical Fiber Conference proceedings than some of the research published by recognized science journals. Not sure how or where to draw the line on ‘published’.
except that it promotes the idea that the medieval warming period was warmer than today and global in scope. These claims have been completely discredited as the following video clearly shows:
Eventually the political panicists will enact legislation to decree that skeptics are not licensed to practice Science and so can be penalised for conducting an illegal enquiry.
Panicists are the fiscal parasites of politics and their activities burden the Poor.
“little work has been done to understand why climate sceptical blogs exist”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Perhaps because we understand the Scientific Method and therefore can recognize when someone is B.S.ing us?
Pathway says:
September 9, 2013 at 12:37 pm
What many people fail to realize is that there are more scientist alive today than in the whole sum of history. WUWT probably has more people who are actively engaged in science or have worked in science research than any other forum.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My count is over a hundred people with degrees in some sort of science, math or engineering.
Anthony,
I suggest you consider buying a bullet-proof vest if you have any $ left over from the AGU fund!!!
Gunga Din says:
September 9, 2013 at 4:40 pm
Why do climate blogs exist?
She’ll need to ask the bloggers.
Why are they read?
Individuals will have their own reasons.
Perhaps a topic for another poll?
A few possible answers:
“I don’t believe the science is settled”
“To learn more on the topic.”
“I don’t trust the politics involved.”
“To let off some stream.”
“To add my 2 cents.”
“Al Gore”
“All of the above.”
I’m sure the readers could add more suggestions.
_————–
I would certainly add this one !
——————
Gail Combs says:
September 9, 2013 at 5:03 pm
“little work has been done to understand why climate sceptical blogs exist”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Perhaps because we understand the Scientific Method and therefore can recognize when someone is B.S.ing us?
————————-
Bingo !
Barry Woods says: @ur momisugly September 9, 2013 at 2:04 pm
….I have taken up Amelia’s request to particpate in her research. Had a chat on twitter….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Then perhaps you can alert her that her paper is being discussed and she might want to defend it herself.
What really bothers me about this paper is the phrase “mainstream science”. Excuse me, but isn’t science…SCIENCE? I understand mainstream media, but mainstream science? What branch is that? Does she understand that the mainstream media label is often used derogatorily, as in a group associated with shallowness, sensationalism, and pandering to what sells at the moment? Oh yeah…maybe she does get it.
I suggest she uses “institutionalized”, “academic”, “commercialized”, “government subsidized”, or “paid” science as being more specific and accurate. And maybe she needs to add some context by including a summary of important discoveries made in the NON-mainstream science domain.
Perhaps at some point we’ll get a study about people who study skeptics?
Since she is starting from a position of complete ignorance she has nowhere to go but toward improvement. Best to embrace and educate her than to watch her become groomed by the flawed non-consensus side of the debate. Anyone up for taking on a climate noob?
george e. smith says……
“It was a dark and stormy night when the Climastrologists gathered to elect the devil molecule, Carbon Dioxide, as the control knob of climate and the means of taxing and controlling all of humanity.
jai mitchell says:
“…it promotes the idea that the medieval warming period was warmer than today and global in scope. These claims have been completely discredited…”
As if.
You will understand if I don’t waste twenty minutes on your silly alarmist propaganda video, but the fact is that the MWP is recognized by the vast majority of geologists as being warmer than the current [natural] global warming cycle.
The planet is still emerging from the Little Ice Age — one of the coldest episodes of the entire 10,700 year Holocene. With any luck, we will warm an additional 1º – 2º C, with all the attendant benefits. At that point we will be on a par with the MWP. Further, it will not be due to “carbon”, or other human factors.
The earth warms. The earth cools. Natural cycles are fully sufficient to explain all observations. The entire global population could easily fit within a one kilometre sphere, with room to spare. Termites emit 10X more “greenhouse” gases than all human activity. Human activity simply does not have the effect claimed by the climate alarmist crowd.
But if you need to be scared, you’re not alone: Chicken Little believed that an acorn meant the sky was falling…
Doesn’t this mean the WUWT is now classified as the equivalent to a gateway drug? Start here and it’s a downward spiral to skepticism.
Roy Spencer says:
September 9, 2013 at 12:29 pm
Apparently, you can get a PhD these days just for using a bunch of multi-syllable words.
—————————————————————————————————————
“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.”
Translation…
We looked at some popular, sceptical climate science blogs to see what was up.
That’s the BSc version.
This study confirms that WUWT is an Army of won.
The left just can’t stand it that people can reason; and discern truth.
Gail Combs says:
September 9, 2013 at 5:08 pm
Is that all?
It’s always better to be underestimated by your adversaries.