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.
@Gail Combs
MSEE here with concentration in Signal Processing, so +1 on your estimate even though I seldom comment and have no guest commentaries.
Avid reader on this site on a daily basis.
I’ve just realized the author has dumbed down the conversation to a sub-plebeian level. By corralling the three blogs within her threat circle she has conveniently reduced the scale of the capable opposition and marginalized all the rest. She may be ignorant but she ain’t stupid. Bishop Hill, for example, wallows with the pigs at the more radicalized knee-jerk anti-warmist sites at the stroke of her pen.
Let’s give the lady some credit for being reasonably open-minded.
However, would someone (who has decided to engage in her study) please ask her not to quote results to 5 significant digits — and explain why it detracts from her credibility.
@Dale Rainwater. Deanster says:
September 9, 2013 at 4:14 pm
Now if you really were a good scientist you would realize that is very unscientific.
Try reading Einstein’s 1901 paper should we have gauged the value of Einstein from this paper it would have been truly better he never published it at all because the paper makes reasonably accurate predictions for heavier hydrophobic molecules, but fails totally for lighter molecules.
Whether someone has published at all or published a really really bad paper tells you nothing about the persons science ability … history alone tells you that if you missed the memo in your science methodology lessons.
Many engineers and hard sciences graduates would likewise have probably have better understanding of science than half the mentally challenged with PhD’s that publish papers. The number of papers on GR/SR which is blatantly wrong from people with PhD’s and even the odd Nobel science prize is legendary try looking at the recent events around “A Black Hole Mystery Wrapped in a Firewall Paradox”.
Oliver K Manuel has 145+ publications to his name. [Is] he the sort of lunatic that would improve the commentary on the site because he is published? I understand he has equally scientifically brilliant insights into climate change … lol.
=====================================================================
An attempt to “divide and conquer”?
Such a move would only succeed if the other bloggers have an ego problem. I doubt if Bishop Hill or many of the others have a problem with another site getting more “hits” or attention than theirs.
If that were the case, why do they link to each other?
I’m not saying she or others may not try to use her work with that in mind but I don’t think it will work. How could pointing more people to this and other sites possibly help “the cause”?
RockyRoad says: @ur momisugly September 9, 2013 at 6:20 pm
Is that all?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Those are only the ones who have come out of the closet (mentioned their education) in the last six months to a year. I started counting because of the nasty comment from an alarmist troll.
What can I say, I like real data.
Gunga Din says: @ur momisugly September 9, 2013 at 7:34 pm
An attempt to “divide and conquer”?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I certainly do not see that working. Many of the skeptic blogs have an interconnecting audience and often point out interesting stuff at another blog.
@Dale Rainwater. Deanster says:
September 9, 2013 at 4:14 pm
It took some searching around the internet but I finally found it here is Oliver K. Manuel views on climate change
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/
His Qualifications
NSF Postdoctoral Fellow, University of California, Berkeley, Physics and Mass Spectrometry, 1964.
Ph.D., University of Arkansas, Nuclear Chemistry and Mass Spectrometry, 1963.
M.S., University of Arkansas, Nuclear Chemistry, 1962.
B.S., Kansas State College, Pittsburg, Kansas, Chemistry and Mathematics, 1959.
He even has the catchy byline … yeah he worked for NASA
– Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
[snip]
So this is the sort of reader and commentary we should encourage is it Dr Deanster?
the actual paper can be found here:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379104003105
The CH4 concentration measured in Vostok ice fell to ∼450 ppb, and CO2 values to ∼250 ppm. These natural decreases contrast with the increases in recent millennia and support the early anthropogenic hypothesis of major gas emissions from late-Holocene farming.
It seems to me there are so many climate blogs because you don’t have a lot of published work that supports your side. You have to resort to arguing against most current research and promoting unpublished work.
jai mitchell says:
September 9, 2013 at 4:57 pm
except that it promotes the idea that the medieval warming period was warmer than today and global in scope.
—
And yet it was. Antarctic Ice cores have confirmed this. You’re not too knowledgeable about the matter, are you Jai?
Perhaps youtube is not your best source of scientific information.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/11/evidence-for-a-global-medieval-warm-period/
Joe says:
“It seems to me…”
Well, there’s your problem right there.
And to easily refute your belief that scientific skeptics are not published, here is just one skeptic’s publications. Note that there are hundreds of papers published by that one individual.
There are tens of thousands of skeptics, as shown by the 31,400 OISM co-signers, who dispute the false belief that CO2 is harmful. The truth of the matter is that scientific skeptics far outnumber climate alarmists. Skeptics are the true “consensus” [for whatever that’s worth in science].
You’re just reading thinly-trafficked alarmist blogs. That explains your misinformation.
rtj1211 says:
September 9, 2013 at 1:10 pm
There are
threefourfive constants in scientific papers:1. The prevailing political climate is always supported.
2. More research is always needed.
3. Angles where new funding could be secured are always alluded to.
4. Any single experiment in one paper authored by five people will be published in five papers written by five different lead authors.
5. The Department Head will be lead author on all papers written while the Department Head is in charge of funding subsequent papers in that Department. This is why authors work for other departments doing field experiments.
Gail Combs says:
September 9, 2013 at 7:41 pm
And what about those of us with multiple scientific degrees?
Thanks, Anthony. Very well done!
Yes, WUWT is a most valuable scientific resource.
Amelia Sharman strikes us as just another warbling sycophant. Why is it that such verbalizers virtually never provide context-and-perspective in their tarradiddling adumbrations?
Interesting interpretation. Of course, it is wrong. That isn’t the the finding of the paper. Let’s see whether you and/or your readers, contributors, and moderators can even find the mistake. Seems like the error would be obvious to those who are at the center of the climate blogosphere.
Any reference to Cook and Doran immediately contaminates the value of this work. A theologist should soon write a paper about the “dogma of 97%”, this number seems to hold some magic / sacred meaning, which it is beyond the reach of science or common sense to fathom.
It has been some time since I first posted this, but in light of the arguments by Joe and Jmitchell, I humbly present:
The Physicist and the Climatologist
Climatologist; I have a system of undetermined complexity and undetermined composition, floating and spinning in space. It has a few internal but steady state and minor energy sources. An external energy source radiates 1368 watts per meter squared at it on a constant basis. What will happen?
Physicist; The system will arrive at a steady state temperature which radiates heat to space that equals the total of the energy inputs. Complexity of the system being unknown, and the body spinning in space versus the radiated energy source, there will be cyclic variations in temperature, but the long term average will not change.
Climatologist; Well what if I change the composition of the system?
Physicist; see above.
Climatologist; Perhaps you don’t understand my question. The system has an unknown quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere that absorbs energy in the same spectrum as the system is radiating. There are also quantities of carbon and oxygen that are combining to create more CO2 which absorbs more energy. Would this not raise the temperature of the system?
Physicist; there would be a temporary fluctuation in temperature caused by changes in how energy flows through the system, but for the long term average… see above.
Climatologist; But the CO2 would cause a small rise in temperature, which even if it was temporary would cause a huge rise in water vapour which would absorb even more of the energy being radiated by the system. This would have to raise the temperature of the system.
Physicist; there would be a temporary fluctuation in the temperature caused by changes in how energy flows through the system, but for the long term average… see above.
Climatologist; That can’t be true. I’ve been measuring temperature at thousands of points in the system and the average is rising.
Physicist; The temperature rise you observe can be due to one of two factors. It may be due to a cyclic variation that has not completed, or it could be due to the changes you alluded to earlier resulting in a redistribution of energy in the system that affects the measurement points more than the system as a whole. Unless the energy inputs have changed, the long term temperature average would be… see above.
Climatologist; AHA! All that burning of fossil fuel is releasing energy that was stored millions of years ago, you cannot deny that this would increase temperature.
Physicist; Is it more than 0.01% of what the energy source shining on the planet is?
Climatologist; Uhm… no.
Physicist; Rounding error. For the long term temperature of the planet… see above.
Climatologist; Methane! Methane absorbs even more than CO2.
Physicist; see above.
Climatologist; Clouds! Clouds would retain more energy!
Physicist; see above.
Climatologist; Ice! If a fluctuation in temperature melted all the ice less energy would be reflected into space and would instead be absorbed into the system, raising the temperature. Ha!
Physicist; The ice you are pointing at is mostly at the poles where the inclination of the radiant energy source is so sharp that there isn’t much energy to absorb anyway. But what little there is would certainly go into the surface the ice used to cover, raising its temperature. That would reduce the temperature differential between equator and poles which would slow down convection processes that move energy from hot places to cold places. The result would be increased radiance from the planet that would exceed energy input until the planet cooled down enough to start forming ice again. As I said before, the change to the system that you propose could well result in redistribution of energy flows, and in short term temperature fluctuations, but as for the long term average temperature…. see above.
Climatologist; Blasphemer! Unbeliever! The temperature HAS to rise! I have reports! I have measurements! I have computer simulations! I have committees! United Nations committees! Grant money! Billions and billions and billions! I CAN’T be wrong, I will never explain it! Billions! and the carbon trading! Trillions in carbon trading!
Physicist; (gasp!) how much grant money?
Climatologist; Billions. Want some?
Physicist; Uhm…
Climatologist; BILLIONS
Climatologist; Hi. I used to be a physicist. When I started to understand the danger the world was in though, I decided to do the right thing and become a climatologist. Let me explain the greenhouse effect to you…
WUWT = peer review, not pal review!
Congratulations, Anthony! I wouldn’t worry about the “target on your back,” the CAGW crowd has a habit of shooting blanks.
Wow. It doesn’t take much to get a Ph.D. these days.
Not having heard of some the “central” sites I had a look. “Algorelied.com” triggres my anti-virus detector. – AVG free version.
Holy cow and she trying to complete a PhD on Global Warming? by using phrases like:
“Knowledge contestation’,?
” degree centrality and node betweennes tests”?
“Thematic content analysis”?
??? She will surely convince the lot of us.
Even my spell check couldn’t keep up with that.! Oh I get it now, reminds me a lot of Northern Cali in the 60″s. but the drugs must be A LOT stronger these days and thanks again davidmhoffer it always makes me chuckle :).
Ms. Amelia Sharmanab’s betweenness node (one between her ears) lacks centrality.
What a viscous empty verbiage she produces!
The fact that mountebanks of her ilk are able to earn their living off our sweat and blood by producing nothing but harmful verbal waste is the central problem of our society.
ANYONE, know why climate audit has been silent for nigh-on 40 days and 40 nights?