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.
DirkH says “The MO of Fabians is the gradual transformation of the entire world into a socialist utopia (with them controlling ALL resources).”
Isn’t this “reds under the bed” approach now rather dated? So long as WUWT remains privately owned “the woman” (per your description) will have no possibility of controlling it – and I feel confident (even if it remains a “Team B” player with sceptical views not ultimately winning the argument) that it will be seen to remain loyal to scientific principles…
– – – – – – –
DirkH,
I extend that.
Kant being fundamentally the metaphysical and epistemological platform that Hegel used.
We should raise a toast to the study of the history of philosophy. Cheers!
NOTE: I know nothing of Fabians, Free Masons or Hermetic Societies.
John
I come here for the science, not for a “feel-good fix” in support of a personal climate ideology. Glad to see I’m not alone. And congrats to WUWT for being the BIGGEST climate blog (in terms of betweenness, anyway) because you’re the BEST (in terms of sticking to real science).
Amelia Sharman is concurrently working on another paper investigating obscure but interesting connections and networks among an 18th century group of individuals under the title “Mapping the British Colonials in North America”.
Using Freeman’s approach of degree centrality and betweenness centrality her research indicates that among the most central nodes contesting British colonial rule seem to have been George Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton.
She writes that “evidence supporting the acceptance of British ownership of the colonies was overwhelming in peer-reviewed papers (Ford, Worthington C. et al (1775): ‘Quantifying the consensus on dominion over American colonies’, Lloyd’s Evening Post)”.
She notes, however, that “little work has been done to understand why these [colonial nodes and networks] existed” and “little is known about the what their role as public instances of sovereignty contestation” may have been in the American colonies in the 1770s.
It is obvious that more research is needed.
– – – – – – – –
Pathway,
I am a retired engineer but let me restate that with some self mockery added for levity . . .
Who am I?
I am just a lowly, lowly
cookengineerSource => That was paraphrased from the Casey Ryback character in the Steven Seagal movie ‘Under Seige’. In the movie, this response to that line came from a female character,
Jordan Tate: “Oh, my God, we’re gonna die. ”
NOTE: I was going to show a YouTube of it but there was a little bit too much bare woman flesh . . .
John
You can get a PhD for this kind of thing? Really?
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.
—————————————–
Troll Alert! I’ve seen this tactic used before, as an attempt to “out” people who use online anonymity. The objective is to get people to post their real names and work they have done, so they can be targeted. We all know being published is the only metric for intelligence, right? Read the tone of the message, it is negative. Do you ever refer to yourself as a patron? Please don’t fall for this troll tactic.
Eric
Seriously? Where’s Tom Nelson? Marc Morano? Steve Goddard? ‘C3 Headlines’…WTF?
After reviewing the actual paper, it became obvious why my ‘C3’ blog got ranked so high. I’ll accept being in the top 10 with a hearty laugh. (I guess it pays trying to help other bloggers of the skeptical persuasion.)
And this paper does explain a rash of visits to my blog roll over the last few months, from the same site. Since I keep the ‘blog roll’ on a separate page (http://www.c3headlines.com/favorite-climate-blogs.html) it’s easy to keep track of visits for that specific info. I was scratching my head as to why one site would keep visiting that page. Now I have an answer.
“Nullius in verba” is the operative phrase here Amelia Sharman, “Nullius in verba”*
.
.
.
* (In case you need help Amelia: Latin for “on the word of no one” or “Take nobody’s word for it” absent sufficient proof and the release of ‘good’ data, the methodology, etc.)
.
But Jim, is that not now “Nonsense et eternal verbose”
re: RACookPE1978 says September 12, 2013 at 11:05 am
Maybe when “off property” (literally: away from the office out amongst the public) – or reading her paper (which looks more like it originated in ‘sales’ rather than the engineering or science depts.)
.
“Using degree centrality and node betweenness tests …”
WTF???