Mapping the climate sceptical blogosphere
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.
|Date of creation:||Aug 2013|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE|
Phone: +44 (020) 7405 7686
Web page: http://www.lse.ac.uk/grantham.
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Brigitte Nerlich, 2010. "'Climategate': Paradoxical Metaphors and Political Paralysis," Environmental Values, White Horse Press, vol. 19(4), pages 419-422, November.
- Robert A. Mundell & Paul J. Zak, 2005. "Introduction," Chapters, in: International Monetary Policy after the Euro, chapter 1 Edward Elgar Publishing.
- Vaughan, Liwen & Yang, Rongbin, 2013. "Web traffic and organization performance measures: Relationships and data sources examined," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 699-711.
- Dan M. Kahan & Hank Jenkins-Smith & Donald Braman, 2011. "Cultural cognition of scientific consensus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 147-174, February.
- Kevin Wallsten, 2007. "Agenda Setting and the Blogosphere: An Analysis of the Relationship between Mainstream Media and Political Blogs," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 24(6), pages 567-587, November.
- Sonia Akter & Jeff Bennett & Michael B. Ward, 2013. "Climate change scepticism and public support for mitigation: evidence from an Australian choice experiment," Monash Economics Working Papers archive-47, Monash University, Department of Economics.
- Poltorak, Mike & Leach, Melissa & Fairhead, James & Cassell, Jackie, 2005. "'MMR talk' and vaccination choices: An ethnographic study in Brighton," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 709-719, August.
- Adam Corner & Lorraine Whitmarsh & Dimitrios Xenias, 2012. "Uncertainty, scepticism and attitudes towards climate change: biased assimilation and attitude polarisation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 114(3), pages 463-478, October.
- Lars H. Gulbrandsen, 2008. "The Role of Science in Environmental Governance: Competing Knowledge Producers in Swedish and Norwegian Forestry," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 8(2), pages 99-122, 05.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:lsg:lsgwps:wp124. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (The GRI Administration)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.