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.
Would be nice if the paper did a similar study of alarmist blogs to do a comparison.
“New paper finds climate skeptical blogosphere is important source of expertise, reinterpretation, & scientific knowledge production”
=========
Maybe, but they are keeping close track of the products.
I am sorry, but you can’t judge a paper on its abstract.
It’s funny such a study even exists. I was told by the Leftoblogosphere that the center was Big Oil with oodles of money spewing to skeptics. One more failed prediction down the drain.
Anthony – Well it doesn’t work fine from where I’m sat. If I post a comment it disappears completely, and I don’t see the usual “Your comment is awaiting moderation” message.
Thanks for posting a link to my summer sea ice videos by the way. If you’ve had a chance to watch one what do you make of it? In particular, would you say that the Mail on Sunday’s comment on September 8th 2013 that “an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores” was accurate, or not?
[Depending on the content of each posting, it may, or may not, go into the moderator’s queue for review before publication. Be patient, there are 1,235,000 other comments already accepted. 8<) Mod]
– – – – – – – –
Daniel G.,
Correct. That is why I accessed and looked at the paper at the link provided in the lead post. This is the link:
” 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 ”
John
Poke ’em with a sharp stick in the eye, that always makes ‘fast friends’.
I didn’t see much ‘there’ there BTW; apparently YMMV. What are (or were) the chances your reputation preceded you?
.
And good on you, Anthony. The very, very worst that will be said about WUWT 50 years from now is you and WUWT curbed the excesses of group-think echo-chamber consensus types. All upside from there.
Daniel G. says:
April 9, 2014 at 5:28 pm
– – – – – – – – – –
Daniel G.,
My point is deficiency.
She doesn’t state her premises. You have to endeavor to ‘detect’ them, which is a vote in favor of non-science. A waste of time.
Where is the clearly statement concise concepts that she tries to integrate into knew knowledge and where is the schematic of the integration? Shouldn’t science do that?
John
Hmmm … my screen shows a comment ‘parked’ (in moderation) on S now W hite’s blog since April 10, 2014 at 12:37 am … coming up on 45 min now … wonder what the hold up is?
(DoIreallyneedasarctag?)
Struth. I come here to be educated and to educate. Unfortunately not enough of us know what we don’t know.
Kudos!
The 171 blogs is at least 172, because my rarely updated “Glowbull warming” blog has “The world’s least viewed site on global warming and climate change” as its secondary title.
It has one follower, who doesn’t contribute.
http://glowbullwarming.wordpress.com/
Jim Hunt, AKA: Snow White:
Your blog is just another censoring alarmist blog that cannot stand to post skeptic comment.
When someone is terrified of opposing views, they are being a propagandist. That’s you.
Alarmist blogs are almost always the same, in that they cannot stand free and fair debate. You would do well in Cuba, or the old Soviet Union. But in America? Not so much.
WUWT allows you to comment, but you do not allow comments that debunk your alarmist nonsense. Your hypocrisy is amazing, in that you cannot see it in yourself. But we can.
The reason you fear debate is because you always lose the debate. NONE of your stupid alarmist predictions have happened. You are perfect examples of Chicken Little, running around in circles and clucking, trying to convince the world that man-made global warming exists, without a shred of evidence.
When someone runs and hides out from debate, they have lost the debate.
That’s you.
@mod says: April 9, 2014 at 4:36 pm
My posting of that comment seemed to work as expected. Thanks.
@_Jim says: April 9, 2014 at 6:21 pm
If you’ve listened to one of my videos you’ll have realised by now that I hail from Soggy South West England. The sun is up here now, so normal service has been resumed.
@Anthony says: April 9, 2014 at 2:01 pm
Thanks for the constructive criticism. Here’s our shiny new (if somewhat hastily created) Arctic sea ice graphs page:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/resources/arctic-sea-ice-graphs/
What do you make of it?
REPLY: Given that you only show thickness (volume), and ignore everything else, I’d say you are pretty thick on one variable. But, we already knew that. – Anthony
“Snow White says:
April 9, 2014 at 7:37 am
@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/”
I’m sorry Snow White (or Mr Hunt, if you prefer), but I think that a little courtesy would be in order. I’ve read every word on the link you’ve provided, and the central theme of your original post was that “there was no sight or mention of what seems to me the most relevant one of all. The long term trend [of Arctic sea ice]”. You described more than one attempt to bring this deficit to the attention of WUWT.
Given that Michael D posted on your page at April 9, 2014 at 4:01 pm, politely pointing out that the WUWT sea ice page has just such data presented, it would seem a basic courtesy to either acknowledge his assistance (in this blog or yours) and either thank him, or explain why graph does not answer your criticisms.
I acknowledge that your arguments seem to have moved on to volume now, but they have been addressed by others, and better than I could have done.
As an aside, I suppose I could run a blog with limited data about Antarctic sea ice coverage and volumes. I’m sure that I would be criticised, with comments explaining that I was looking at the mural through a microscope, and that the Antarctic buildup cannot be considered in isolation. I think that such criticism would be valid – your thoughts?
Given that it is from the Grantham Institute, I wonder how Bob Ward is taking the news?
No problem this just ‘proves’ that it is evil fossil fuel funded denier blogs which are stopping everyone signing upto ‘the cause ‘ and adopting approaches that will make his pay master even richer.
Snow White says:
April 9, 2014 at 6:54 am
“…I’d hazard a guess that you are currently unaware that the temperature in Tiksi is currently around 0 °C?”
…And did you know that 9 blue whales seem to have been killed by thicker than normal ice off Newfoundland?
http://globalnews.ca/news/1261749/heavy-ice-may-have-crushed-9-blue-whales-to-death-off-newfoundland/
Relevant quote: “We’ve had ferries unable to get across to Newfoundland. We’ve had ice breakers having a real tough time moving through this stuff. It’s under a lot of pressure and it’s thicker than it has been in the last few years,”
Tragic deaths, but it it’s only marginally less relevant than your comment, no?
@GreggB says: April 10, 2014 at 3:33 am
As you can see from the historical record:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/watts-up-with-the-maximum-trend/#Gregg
I asked on more than one occasion for someone to supply a link to “A long term (let’s say 30 years or more) graph for any measure of Arctic sea ice “quantity” showing anything other than a trend in the direction of the bottom right hand corner.” Nobody did. Nobody suggested looking at the WUWT sea ice page either, presumably because no graphs fitting my description can be found on there.
Q.E.D. ?
REPLY: People generally know (from your writings and video) that you have a fixed mindset about sea-ice, so likely don’t bother trying to convince you of anything that your mind is closed to. That said, one of the issues (and there’s really now way of getting around this though I’m sure you’ll try) is that there are other satellite observational data prior to the favorite start date of 1979 in most sea-ice datasets. When you look at those, they show that there was a period int he record with significant gain. If the long-term trend was started at the beginning of this data, you’d get a far different trend.
Yes these should be on the sea-ice page, thanks for the suggestion. – Anthony
If the climate change crowd gets their way in the U.S. and takes the economy down there won’t be much money left to support climate “research” and for this we will all be thankful.
@Anthony says: April 10, 2014 at 8:33 am
My pleasure Anthony, but with all due respect you are evidently not much of a mind reader. I don’t suppose you can provide a link to the data used to generate the graph you reproduce above can you? Since you have apparently been looking at my videos perhaps I might also take this opportunity to repeat another question I previously asked:
“Would you say that the Mail on Sunday’s comment on September 8th 2013 that “an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores” was accurate, or not?”
REPLY: Dunno, haven’t read it, don’t care. I’ve got other other work to do today than worry about your looking up your articles (no link provided) and commenting on your missives – A
@Anthony says: April 10, 2014 at 2:52 am
Can I take it that you didn’t bother clicking any of the links?
REPLY: No, I clicked, I saw, I yawned. – Anthony