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.
ref:
“The Cook and Doran papers don’t get mentioned at all. This is quite interesting because it’s most unlikely that the reviewers of the paper (who will have been warmist sociologists) asked her to take them out, so it was probably removed because of the negative comments on the sceptic blogs.”
I sent Amelia a copy of this
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/
and this a while back 😉
http://www.lulu.com/shop/m-r-k-zimmerman/the-consensus-on-the-consensus/ebook/product-17391505.html
I also bought Amelia lunch, and spent about 3 hours with Amelia at home being interviewed for her research and ‘probably’ mentioned it again…. ( I signed loads of consent forms, etc)
Amelia has interviewed an awful lot of sceptics in the UK, and I’m sure very very many of them brought up Cook et al 97% consensus paper…(and no doubt Doran and Anderegg)
For those who find the pseudo-scientific style of the paper not easy to understand, here are the main points:
1. WattsUpWithThat is the most influential of all the skeptical blogs;
2. These blogs provide a high level of scientific information;
3. They are effective, or it wouldn’t be worth writing a paper about them;
4. They are winning the debate, or they wouldn’t be worthy of discussion.
5. This is one small step towards the scientific repositioning of academe away from partisan politics on scientific issues and towards a more balanced approach.
6. But don’t hold your breath, though. There is a long way to go and a whole lot to do.
Bottom line: Well done, Anthony and the team! Bob Ward will be furious. But all your supporters and friends are delighted.
_Jim says: April 9, 2014 at 10:36 am
re: Steve Oregon says April 9, 2014 at 9:10 am
… Because your claiming WUWT …
MY EYES! MY EYES! I can’t take it! The language is slipping away!!!
I too find the misuse of you’re & your a pet peeve annoyance.
However, in this case I meant past tense and should have said “your claim that”
or “Because your claiming that WUWT”
Both those uses of “your” are correct, are they not?
And in that read my original use was also correct?
If not, I surrender for prosecution or persecution. 🙂
It must piss the MSM Presstitutes off that their propaganda pales in comparison to real science and truth.
The term “climate change” applies to scientific skeptics — and only to skeptics.
Michael Mann and his relatively small clique of followers do not believe that global temperatures changed prior to the industrial revolution. That is plainly demonstrated in his Hockey Stick chart, which is essentially flat until CO2 began rising.
The reality: there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature only from about 1980 to 1997. Before and after those years, there is no correlation.
Furthermore, the only verified correlation between CO2 and T on any time scale [from years, to hundreds of millennia] shows that ∆CO2 follows ∆T. That can mean only one thing: changes in temperature are the cause of changes in CO2, not vice-versa.
Thus, Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick chart has been debunked by the real world. Of course he will not acknowledge that fact, because the truth is not in him. And his clique of followers have their minds made up and closed tight, so there is no reasoning possible with them.
But most folks just want the truth, and WUWT provides that. For that reason, the world is moving against Mann, the IPCC, and the rest of the purveyors of pseudo-science. They don’t like it. But this article shows them and everyone else: that’s the way it is. The IPCC is discredited, and Mann’s heady days of hero worship are in the past. Now, he’s just a chump.
Amelia is not, according to various sources on the web, a scientist. Probably not a valley girl either, as her pictures show an apparent lack of makeup and hair skills. She has, however inadvertently, produced a nearly scientific approach to her work. Anthony made a statement to the effect that WUWT is the world’s most viewed site on climate change. Her research demonstrated that statement to be true. See how it works, warmistas? Scientist A publishes, scientist B verifies or disproves the published data through independent research. Amazing, init?
Thanks for all the hard work, Anthony.
– – – – – – – – –
Barry Woods,
That is very relevant info. Thank you for providing it.
Amelia Sharman seems to have conducted her research on some skeptic subjects / blogs by the professional, ethical and open way; with consent forms. It seems that would mitigate ethical and legal problems after publication. I congratulate her.
Alert to Lewandowsky and Cook: That is how you are supposed to have done your ‘Recursive Fury’ and ‘Moon Hoax’ research on skeptics. N’est ce pas?
John
That diagram by Amelia Sharman, which looks like it was spun by a spider on PCP, has appeared a couple of times in articles at Bishop Hill last year. It was the ONLY diagram/figure in one lengthy piece she wrote. Needs to work a bit harder at presenting data.
I have to assume I am wrong in order to get to where I am going safely. The ocean teaches humility. So here is the deal: Karl Popper vs unscientific; Freud vs navigating a stochastic system “scientifically”. I am a sailor, navigator & captain, I managed to circumnavigate with out hurting any one. When I set a course I use all of the information available and know damn well that the next time I check my position I will not actually be where I was intending to go. This is because of the hundreds of immeasurable influences that act on the boat. I knew at the time I set the course that I was making the best guess but my guess was probably wrong, HOW WRONG? Is my guess a little wrong or have the possibility of being seriously wrong? In an hour or a minute depending on the currents and situation I take another fix. The issue is always by how much am I off? What did I learn by the distance off and how do I apply that new information to another guess? If I know the magnetic heading and speed through the water and where I actually am verses where I thought I was going to be, I can infer quite a bit about the multiple forces acting on the vessel. This total effect on the course is reduced to a single vector which accumulates all of the forces including imperfections in navigational precision. The vector is taken into account and another best guess is applied to the course. It is comforting to know what the components of the vector are but in the final analysis it is the sum of the forces and net direction that interests me.
The antithesis of what a prudent navigator does is to assume that they are right and plow right ahead. Damn the torpedoes so to speak. This situation is more prevalent than one would hope and is worth comparing to the present CAGW ideology. I submit that the “innocents” are at the early stage of being lost when don’t actually realize that they are lost.
The first step in getting into serious trouble navigating is a phenomena called “bending the map”. Navigators have to always question their assumptions but occasionally an individual wants so badly to be where they though they should be that they misidentify features in order to create a rational that over rides all other tools they might employ. The analogy of this situation to Karl Poppers assessment of Freud and Marxism is strong. Most people experience getting lost in the woods. The fantasy continues until some piece of information registers in between their ears that is absolutely irreconcilable. The fantasy dissolves into the flush of comprehension. There is an instant that the individual realizes that they are lost or mistaken. Having been there and done that I assure you that there is a change in blood pressure.
This epiphany might arrive with the telling change in velocity as the draft of the vessel exceeds the depth of the water. One hopes realization occurs before the vessel is endangered. What makes this analogy more interesting is that it appears to me that the confused CAGW positions are buttressed by bad interpretations of the data or just plain fictions designed to confuse. and thus have the effect of delaying the moment of realization that a fantasy has been created. Darwin made some complaint about the danger of false facts. I think that we should also acknowledge the role of imprudent confidence. Bump! Bump! Wakey wakey! Just thinkin’
@ur momisuglyBilly Liar says: April 9, 2014 at 9:15 am
I was merely echoing Sun Spot’s phraseology @ur momisugly 7:01 am – “I think you are totally un-aware that this web site….”. Clear now?
And here’s another example of how important WUWT is. Just saw this bit o’ propaganda at MSN (link below). I particularly like the part about Glacier National Park’s “over 150 glaciers of which only about 25 remain” and the narrator’s careful neglect of the fact that the “rapid temperature changes” took place during a period when the entire United States interior was a wilderness. My second favorite is the Congo Basin section. Yes, if you decide that it’s one of the places you want to see “before it’s gone,” do be careful about the gorilla warfare which could, you know, spoil any holiday. Hipsters beware.
What rubbish.
http://msnvideo.msn.com/?channelindex=4&from=en-us_msnhp#/video/30ed8e71-2421-41a4-beed-e129ac4c3380
Well-deserved recognition, Anthony. Pretty good for an ex box painter. And a painter who could only handle one colour, at that. Well done.
Props to your mods, too.
DirkH says:
April 9, 2014 at 6:59 am
“Run for the hills! Even worse:
The song of the whistling cave frog has changed in the past decades, becoming more high-pitched due to Climate Change, US biologists say.
German article
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/klimawandel-froesche-quaken-in-hoeheren-toenen-a-963336.html
We’re doomed.”
_____________________
It’s the chickification of the frogs.
Kudos Anthony! Another blog that’s often worth a look but isn’t mentioned in the study is No Tricks Zone, run by Pierre Gosselin in Germany.
@RACookPE1978 says: April 9, 2014 at 10:35 am
“Would you be upset if I asked, ‘Why?'”
Not in the least. “Why?” is generally a very good question to ask. Whilst I’d quibble with your use of the term “obsess”, in this instance it seems to me that a web site proudly claiming to “focus on the scientific element of the climate debate” should at the very least mention volume somewhere on its summary sea ice page that allegedly includes “every conceivable sea ice source”
In that context it also seems to me that the anomalously high temperatures in the Arctic all winter long are worthy of mention somewhere or other as well.
Only to a cherry picker.
This is the only blog I know of that offers to sell you a thermometer and urges you to “measure it yourself”. Just an observation…
I found WUWT while doing a search on CAGW several years ago on something in the news about a young lady doing a high school paper and blog (Kristen Byrnes with “Ponder the Maunder”). I think WUWT covered it in a post and I’ve been enjoying WUWT ever since. At some point I was soon on my way to an assignment down under, I began enjoying the Jo Nova and Jennifer Marohasy blogs that I found from the WUWT blog roll. I also found a favorite blog via WUWT blog roll relevant to my current assignment in the land of PM Harper (that being SDA or Small Dead Animals). Blog roll is helpful and may play a part in “linking” sites, although it would also link to AGW and Lukewarmer sites as well.
Snow White apparently hasn’t checked the recent Arctic ice charts. His “anomalously high temperatures” are contradicted by current Arctic ice cover, which as we see is above it’s long term average [the red line].
And of course global ice is well above its 30-year average [the red graph]. [Remember ‘global’? That is what the entire debate is about — it’s not about regional fluctuations that are always happening].
Finally, Snow White forgets that the Arctic contains only one-tenth the ice that the Antarctic has. He believes that the Arctic tail wags the Antarctic dog.
But when the only thing the alarmist clique has is the current, natural Arctic ice fluctuation, then that’s what they must use. They have been wrong about everything else, and it is only a matter of time until they are wrong about the Arctic, too.
The reason is because the alarmist clique started out with a basic misunderstanding: they believed that CO2 is the primary cause of temperature changes, when in fact, temperature changes are the cause of changes in CO2. They began with a wrong premise, so naturally they reached an incorrect conclusion.
That part is OK, lots of folks make mistakes. However, the alarmist clique absolutely refuses to admit that they could be wrong. But since they have been proven wrong over and over again about everything they predicted, they end up looking like buffoons.
@dbstealey – Actually, Snow white is just trying to hawk their own website. She has been thread bombing several blogs with her website, but no one cares to follow her links. If she had anything, she would post the source, not the propaganda.
@Monckton of Brenchley says: April 9, 2014 at 11:26 am
I’m afraid I’m going to have to quibble with your number 2. How can any blog “provide a high level of scientific information” about sea ice without mentioning volume on the overview page? Anyone who’s studied a modicum of physics must surely conclude that when discussing the “amount” of a solid the “area” needs to be multiplied by the “thickness”?
REPLY: You don’t even HAVE a sea ice reference/resource page, all you have is whining, gloom and doom video based on your opinions: http://greatwhitecon.info/resources/ so when you have one, you can point out with a modicum of credibility just how bad ours is, Mr. Hunt.
As for the volume plots that are available, we don’t have a lot of faith in them, that said, we’ll add them with a caveat about those concerns. I’ll expect you to point out to other websites that use these plots as an exclusive basis for alarm that they are missing extent, area, and other metrics that are available.
If you wish to comment here further, put your name to your words, as you do for your videos. I don’t have time for cowards that hide behind fake names while criticizing.
– Anthony
or Cross dressers? Snow white is not exactly a top 10 boys name. 😉
Well merited. Consequently: The more human caused climate catastrophe prophecies fail, the more desperate climate sermons. The more desperate climate sermons, the more WUWT attracts.
– – – – – – – – –
Christopher Monckton,
Is it pseudo-science or is it non-science or is it even integrated reasoning?
My thought is that it is non-science by having insufficiently stated premises and there is no case shown by her that her concepts are integrated sufficiently for one to do a clear logical analysis of her work.
The reason I would not call it pseudo-science is that the essence of pseudo-science is it tries to have scientific looking credibility by mimicking real science. Her paper does not appear to actually mimic science****
****science – as in the concept of science as Richard Feynman conceived 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.
_________________________________
Greens and Reds are vulnerable to manipulation via the “politics of envy”. Emotion trumps reason amongst the intellectually lazy..
The fact that this comes out of the arch-warmist Grantham Institute is absolutely amazing. However did this paper get the imprimatur from their powers-that-be?
Anthony – The reason I’ve been using an obviously fake name is that last summer a certain Mr. S. Goddard, I believe a one time resident in these hallowed halls, seemed to take great pleasure in informing me that I was “now spam” as far as WordPress.com/Akismet was concerned:
http://econnexus.org/how-to-upset-a-global-warming-sceptic/
Let’s see how using my real name works now shall we?
REPLY: It works fine, and yes sometimes your comments are pretty close to spam. – Anthony
Anthony – Here’s a copy of a comment I attempted to make using my real name. Nothing has appeared yet, so what do you suggest?
The reason I’ve been using an obviously fake name is that last summer a certain Mr. S. Goddard, I believe a one time resident in these hallowed halls, seemed to take great pleasure in informing me that I was “now spam” as far as WordPress.com/Akismet was concerned:
http://econnexus.org/how-to-upset-a-global-warming-sceptic/
Let’s see how using my real name works now shall we?