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.
These folks who refuse to accept a majority biased view. What exactly is up with that? It must be the “centrality,” we guess.
De-legitimisation”?
Interesting abstract: “these central blogs are key protagonists in a process of attempted expert knowledge de-legitimisation and contestation”
How about “applying the scientific method” and upholding scientific integrity?
Why? Because the media and politicians tell the public that the ‘science is settled’, we must act now and a decade long general censorship by the media of their views. More sceptical voices are now being heard and the alleged ‘consensus’ is breaking down despite the spin and fairy tales.
Note: For many years sceptic blogs featured well in the blog awards. Why? Thank goodness for the internet.
Target analysis completed
Operation ‘Silence Skeptics’ approved
Execute
Anthony writes: “On a side note, there’s no “network” of 171 blogs. We don’t have a group, guild, or any sort of organization.”
I’m going the disagree, although in the age of Lewandowsky, it’s natural that Anthony would be sensitive about such things. I think it is a “network.” What it’s not, is a “conspiracy.”
@Sun Spot says: April 9, 2014 at 7:01 am
Whereas I think you are totally un-aware that this web site cherry picks “the facts” it chooses to present to its readers:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/watts-up-with-the-maximum-trend/
oldspanky says:
April 9, 2014 at 7:00 am
Easy way to figure out the difference, spanky: If you want to be personal, think about the ‘I’ in compliment as being personal; if you want to equate things, think about the ‘E’ in complement.
As for the blog cloud: I assume Cook’s little hobby blog is the one, all on its own, out on the extreme left of the cloud.
Thanks, A. An interesting post.
The Web is made of links. Google, Bing, Yahoo et al. count them. The popularity rank of a Web page is directly proportional to this count. Link to your favorite sites from your Web pages!
Larry in Texas: Hear, hear.
I am an eighty three year old avid follower of WUWT. I start every day reading this blog.
My sixty year old MS in Chemistry doesn’t really qualify me as a scientist, but I understand a bit of the posts. Thank you for shedding light on the murky subject of ACGW or so-called “Climate Change.”
The study means “network” only in the sense of a social network: the people who link to people. It does not necessarily imply any overt organization.
Congratulations. I hope this means that the recent guest posts on issues not remotely scientific will not become a pattern for the future.
The study uses “network” in the sense of a social network: people who link to people. It doesn’t imply any overt organization.
Snow White says:
April 9, 2014 at 6:54 am
You might help your case if you concentrated on not appearing illiterate:
… /2014/04/the-arctic-sea-ice-recovery-vanishes-even-more/ …
How can something ‘vanish even more’?
@Billy Liar says: April 9, 2014 at 8:05 am
“How can something ‘vanish even more’?”
It can’t of course. It’s a parody on the typical “Shock News!!!” headline from “Real Science”!
I guess some people have no sense of humour?
Oh yeah, this is that paper that attempts to claim that skeptical blogs are anti-science, etc. What a nasty little game these academics play: no respect for debate, no tolerance,and no questioning of their apocalyptic claptrap.
What nasty little minded bigots they are.
First, I see WUWT as a jewel. An example of that the best the internet has to offer.
This paper, while it reaches a conclusion that is flattering, I question it’s methods and assumptions.
1. Did it really base it’s analysis on the “blogroll” of the studied sites. ?!? That is more a measure of a blogs aspirations and maybe social networking rather than an objective measure of years of content.
2. framing: “are key protagonists in a process of attempted expert knowledge de-legitimisation and contestation,
“protagonists” … hmm. An interesting choice of word. It least it wasn’t “antagonists,” which I’m sure is the way “97%” of all climate scientists view them.
“contestation” might not be a word I’d pick, but I don’t object to is appropriateness.
“de-legitimization” is a loaded word that I feel is inappropriate.
——————————————————————————–
delegitimize (ˌdiːlɪˈdʒɪtɪˌmaɪz) or delegitimise
vb (tr)
a. to make invalid, illegal, or unacceptable (thefreedictionary)
b. is the sociopsychological[1] process which undermines or marginalises an entity by presenting value judgments as facts which are construed to devalue legitimacy.[2] It is a self-justifying mechanism,[3] with the ultimate goal of justifying harm of an outgroup. (Wikipedia)
c. to diminish or destroy the legitimacy, prestige, or authority of (Merriam-Webster)
d. Withdraw legitimate status or authority from (someone or something): (oxford)
—————————————–
These definitions, with the marginal exception of (c) are in the social-political, not scientific, debate of ideas and theories. So I think this word colors the authors frame of mind in an unflattering way.
3. Scope and methodology: was the domain of analysis pre-constrained to a list of skeptical/anti-alarmist sites and then the network of connections was traversed? Or was a site chosen as a seed and the links followed a certain number of steps leading to skeptic, warmist, news, poltical, governmental, sites as they might? Where is “Real Climate”, “Skeptical Science” and “Climate Progress” on the list, or why aren’t they on the list?
Most regulars here understand & accept the theoretical GHG effect of roughly 1.2C for a CO2 doubling. What we don’t accept is the assumed IPCC positive feedbacks that magnify it. And we don’t completely ignore (like the IPCC) the positive, well-documented effects of CO2 enrichment for plants.
I think he’s taking it well since the LSE based Grantham Institute is funded from moneys derived from investments in various types of companies including oil, coal and tobacco companies.
The OIL FUNDED Grantham Foundation also funds or has funded the Imperial College based Grantham Institute for Climate Change, Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media, World Wildlife Fund and other environmental groups.
There is also a useful discussion of this paper over at CA (about halfway down the comments).
http://climateaudit.org/2014/04/07/the-ethics-application-for-lewandowskys-fury/
Mike S at that site points out the change (toward the CAGW POV) between the working draft and the final paper, particularly clear in the abstract. However, Ms. Sharma did resist the pressure to some extent. I commented at CA as follows:
Yes, clearly pressure was brought to bear on the author, no doubt through the Grantham Institute, which partially funded the work. However, even the paywalled version retains some reasonable observations. For example, the first conclusion is the following:
“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. Regardless of the motivation behind the existence of the climate sceptical opinion, what appears to be the most valued and legitimate way of expressing that opinion within the blogosphere is through the use of scientific themes and language.”
And a bit later:
“Finally, it also suggests that by not focusing on, or explicitly identifying, debates regarding the ideological foundation for climate change disagreement, which more explicitly highlights ‘attitudes and worldviews. . .[and] political ideology and personal values’ (Poortinga et al., 2011, p. 1022), the blogosphere may be playing a central role in perpetuating doubt regarding the scientific basis for subsequent climate change policy-making.”
Right on, Ms. Sharman!
These blogs predominantly focus on the scientific element of the climate debate and that is why I keep coming back.
Please don’t interpret the word “network” to mean “collusion” or “organization.” These authors are applying network analysis, where a “network” is understood to be a collection of linked entities. Thus if some blogs contain each others URLs, they can be analysed as a network. Terms like “out-degree linkages” and “actors” are clues that a certain network jargon is in play.
If the UK’s Bishop Hill were to discuss this paper, and mention Bob Ward, that would perhaps have the best chance of goading the beast to reaction.
Well done Anthony and all mods. Your hard work is being recognised. Great job.
I wonder if the idea of ‘Network’ is part of group think that assumes there is some organization and central funding to views counter to government desired thought.
In her paper ‘Mapping the climate skeptical blogosphere’ author Amelia Sharman wrote,
{bold emphasis mine – JW}
– – – – – – – – –
Amelia Sharman,
Have you considered that what you describe as “ideologically or values-motivated” behavior was studied by the 3 central skeptic blogs you identified? Have you considered that the 3 central skeptic blogs found significant “ideologically or values-motivated” behavior by climate scientists central to the IPCC assessment process? Don’t you consider that is why you observed that the 3 central skeptic blogs were significantly focused on “critiques of the conduct of the climate science system, such as individual climate scientists’ actions (including issues of transparency) or institutional decision-making”?
I think you should pursue a follow-up paper. The 3 central skeptic blogs can help you on it.
John
@John F. Hultquist says:
April 9, 2014 at 7:19 am
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.
Well, that they come from the red side nobody will deny:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/communist-newspaper-features-the-ipcc-and-michael-mann/