IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v167y2021i3d10.1007_s10584-021-03182-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Controversy around climate change reports: a case study of Twitter responses to the 2019 IPCC report on land

Author

Listed:
  • Mary Sanford

    (University of Oxford)

  • James Painter

    (University of Oxford
    University of Oxford)

  • Taha Yasseri

    (University College Dublin
    University College Dublin)

  • Jamie Lorimer

    (University of Oxford)

Abstract

In August 2019, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its Special Report on Climate Change and Land (SRCCL), which generated extensive societal debate and interest in mainstream and social media. Using computational and conceptual text analysis, we examined more than 6,000 English-language posts on Twitter to establish the relative presence of different topics. Then, we assessed their levels of toxicity and sentiment polarity as an indication of contention and controversy. We find first that meat consumption and dietary options became one of the most discussed issues on Twitter in response to the IPCC report, even though it was a relatively minor element of the report; second, this new issue of controversy (meat and diet) had similar, high levels of toxicity to strongly contentious issues in previous IPCC reports (skepticism about climate science and the credibility of the IPCC). We suggest that this is in part a reflection of increasingly polarized narratives about meat and diet found in other areas of public discussion and of a movement away from criticism of climate science towards criticism of climate solutions. Finally, we discuss the possible implications of these findings for the work of the IPCC in anticipating responses to its reports and responding to them effectively.

Suggested Citation

  • Mary Sanford & James Painter & Taha Yasseri & Jamie Lorimer, 2021. "Controversy around climate change reports: a case study of Twitter responses to the 2019 IPCC report on land," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 167(3), pages 1-25, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:167:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s10584-021-03182-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-021-03182-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-021-03182-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10584-021-03182-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nathan Clay & Alexandra E. Sexton & Tara Garnett & Jamie Lorimer, 2020. "Palatable disruption: the politics of plant milk," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 37(4), pages 945-962, December.
    2. Saffron O’Neill & Hywel T. P. Williams & Tim Kurz & Bouke Wiersma & Maxwell Boykoff, 2015. "Dominant frames in legacy and social media coverage of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(4), pages 380-385, April.
    3. Leo Hickman, 2015. "The IPCC in an age of social media," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(4), pages 284-286, April.
    4. Ralf Barkemeyer & Suraje Dessai & Beatriz Monge-Sanz & Barbara Gabriella Renzi & Giulio Napolitano, 2016. "Linguistic analysis of IPCC summaries for policymakers and associated coverage," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(3), pages 311-316, March.
    5. Bertie Vidgen & Taha Yasseri, 2020. "What, when and where of petitions submitted to the UK government during a time of chaos," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(3), pages 535-557, September.
    6. Andreas Bjurström & Merritt Polk, 2011. "Physical and economic bias in climate change research: a scientometric study of IPCC Third Assessment Report," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 108(1), pages 1-22, September.
    7. Kim Holmberg & Iina Hellsten, 2016. "Twitter Campaigns Around the Fifth IPCC Report," SAGE Open, , vol. 6(3), pages 21582440166, August.
    8. Sujatha Raman & Warren Pearce, 2020. "Learning the lessons of Climategate: A cosmopolitan moment in the public life of climate science," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(6), November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Eminente, Clara & Artime, Oriol & De Domenico, Manlio, 2022. "Interplay between exogenous triggers and endogenous behavioral changes in contagion processes on social networks," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 165(P1).
    2. Mary Sanford & Jamie Lorimer, 2022. "Veganuary and the vegan sausage (t)rolls: conflict and commercial engagement in online climate-diet discourse," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, December.
    3. Andrés Navarro & Francisco J. Tapiador, 2023. "Twitch as a privileged locus to analyze young people’s attitudes in the climate change debate: a quantitative analysis," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-13, December.
    4. Araceli Galiano-Coronil & Manuela Ortega-Gil & Belén Macías-Varela & Rafael Ravina-Ripoll, 2023. "An approach for analysing and segmenting messages about the SDGs on Twitter from the perspective of social marketing," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 20(3), pages 635-658, September.
    5. Martin C. Parlasca & Matin Qaim, 2022. "Meat Consumption and Sustainability," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 14(1), pages 17-41, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yixi Yang & Mark C. J. Stoddart, 2021. "Public Engagement in Climate Communication on China’s Weibo: Network Structure and Information Flows," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(2), pages 146-158.
    2. Arjan Wardekker & Susanne Lorenz, 2019. "The visual framing of climate change impacts and adaptation in the IPCC assessment reports," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 156(1), pages 273-292, September.
    3. Andreas Bjurström & Merritt Polk, 2011. "Climate change and interdisciplinarity: a co-citation analysis of IPCC Third Assessment Report," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 525-550, June.
    4. Vincent Gitz & Alexandre Meybeck, 2011. "The establishment of the High Level Panel of Experts on food security and nutrition (HLPE). Shared, independent and comprehensive knowledge for international policy coherence in food security and nutr," Working Papers hal-00866427, HAL.
    5. Milena Bojovic & Andrew McGregor, 2023. "A review of megatrends in the global dairy sector: what are the socioecological implications?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(1), pages 373-394, March.
    6. Kate Elizabeth Gannon, Mike Hulme, 2017. "Geoengineering at the ‘edge of the world’: exploring perceptions of ocean fertilization through the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation," GRI Working Papers 280, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    7. Rachel Einecker & Andrew Kirby, 2020. "Climate Change: A Bibliometric Study of Adaptation, Mitigation and Resilience," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-16, August.
    8. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Meredith T. Niles & Jeroen A. Veraart & Saskia E. Werners & Fiona C. Korporaal & Bob C. Mulder, 2020. "Communicating Climate Change Risk: A Content Analysis of IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-14, June.
    9. Elisabeth Eide & Risto Kunelius, 2021. "Voices of a generation the communicative power of youth activism," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 1-20, November.
    10. Shinichiro Asayama, 2021. "Threshold, budget and deadline: beyond the discourse of climate scarcity and control," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 167(3), pages 1-16, August.
    11. Aleixandre-Benavent, Rafael & Aleixandre-Tudó, José Luis & Castelló-Cogollos, Lourdes & Aleixandre, José Luis, 2018. "Trends in global research in deforestation. A bibliometric analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 293-302.
    12. John Chung-En Liu & Yoram Bauman & Yating Chuang, 2019. "Climate Change and Economics 101: Teaching the Greatest Market Failure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-12, March.
    13. Mary Sanford & Jamie Lorimer, 2022. "Veganuary and the vegan sausage (t)rolls: conflict and commercial engagement in online climate-diet discourse," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, December.
    14. Sonya Gurwitt & Kari Malkki & Mili Mitra, 2017. "Global issue, developed country bias: the Paris climate conference as covered by daily print news organizations in 13 nations," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 143(3), pages 281-296, August.
    15. Khanal, Binod & Lopez, Rigoberto, 2021. "Demand for Plant Based Beverages and Market Competition in Fluid Milk Markets," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315369, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Sarah L. Connors & Maike Nicolai & Sophie Berger & Rosalind Pidcock & Melissa Walsh & Nigel Hawtin, 2022. "Co-developing the IPCC frequently asked questions as an effective science communication tool," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 171(1), pages 1-13, March.
    17. Ferenc Jankó & Judit Papp Vancsó & Norbert Móricz, 2017. "Is climate change controversy good for science? IPCC and contrarian reports in the light of bibliometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(3), pages 1745-1759, September.
    18. Elise Talgorn & Helle Ullerup, 2023. "Invoking ‘Empathy for the Planet’ through Participatory Ecological Storytelling: From Human-Centered to Planet-Centered Design," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-31, May.
    19. Pringle Anna & Robbins David, 2022. "From denial to delay: Climate change discourses in Ireland," Administration, Sciendo, vol. 70(3), pages 59-84, August.
    20. Claudia Matus & Pascale Bussenius & Pablo Herraz & Valentina Riberi & Manuel Prieto, 2021. "Nature Is for Trees, Culture Is for Humans: A Critical Reading of the IPCC Report," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-9, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:167:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s10584-021-03182-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.