Download Dissecting the Tactics of Climate Denial: Lessons for

The Good, the Bad, and the ALL CAPS:
An Analysis of the Climate Change Debate on
Facebook
Karin Kirk – Science Writer
John Cook – Skeptical Science
George Mason University, Center for Climate Change Communication
Why study social media?
The literature makes this environment sound pretty dire…
• Climate science is often misrepresented, that mainstream
climate science is under-represented, and that online media
does not foster “evidence-based, logical deliberation.” (Malone,
2007; Schafer, 2012)
• The discord can be a particular obstacle to public understanding
because, to the layperson, all scientific viewpoints are viewed as
equally valid. (Cooper, 2011)
• Unfortunately, the voices of climate scientists and scientific
institutions are relatively absent; “engaging in online
communication does not seem to be a main occupation of
climate scientists.” (Schafer, 2012)
• Furthermore, online discussions are typically characterized by
polarized, ideologically-driven discourse and, even worse, can
descend to disjointed, abusive, and angry rants. (Schafer, 2012)
As educators we need to know what people
think about this issue
• Increasingly, people get their news from social media. Their
opinions are influenced by what they read in the comments.
(Anderson, et al., 2014)
• Social media allows a somewhat unfiltered view of the opinions,
priorities, and thought processes of the public. As such, it
represents a wide-reaching litmus test for public opinion on
scientific issues.
• This is the most polarized issue of our time. Much can be learned
by listening in on how the conversation plays out in the public
sphere.
• Understanding the discourse around climate change can help
educators predict the types of misconceptions and disinformation
their students are likely to encounter.
Methods
• Analysis of 6 different discussions on
Facebook.
• Discussions appear in the comments
section, below an article about
climate change.
• Selected articles were about climate
science, not policy.
• A range of media outlets were
examined.
• First 100 comments were analyzed,
which included interactions between
commenters.
Media sources
Data source: Pew Research Center Image source: Washington Post
The Warming Arctic
Analysis method
STANCE
•
•
•
•
•
Stance
Content
Tone
Rationale
Likes
support climate science
emergent themes
dismiss science
neutral stance, or
can’t determine stance
CONTENT
TONE
RATIONALE
information
authoritative
science
link or citation
snarky, sarcastic
policy
question
insulting
humanity
persuasive argument
angry
emotion
attack another
commenter
humorous
support another
commenter
reaction or
commentary
So what are people saying?
Stance:
neutral
22%
pro, con, or
in between?
Total
n = 600
pro
48%
con
30%
“Main” media
n = 300
Fox News
n = 100
pro
21%
neutral
23%
neutral
23%
pro
51%
con
26%
con
56%
Agencies
n = 200
neutral
20%
con
23%
pro
57%
Does Facebook amplify the extreme views?
The debate appears more polarized and more negative than it actually is
48%
pro
22%
45%
34%
30%
con
21%
Content
and tone
Carbon Dioxide is not a
pollutant. Carbon Dioxide
does not drive climate
change. Climate change is
normal. There is no crisis.
Even if you believe climate change is a natural event,
wouldn't it still make logical sense to you that
anthropogenic contributors (carbon emissions
resulting from our industrialised societies) should be
reduced? Otherwise, aren't you just making the
natural climate change cycle worse?
Your empty-minded dismissal of legitimate
criticism reveals an attitude more religious
than scientific.
Climate change has been going on since the world
was born. Deserts were seas. Mountains were
underwater. People CAN DO NOTHING TO CHANGE
THAT. IT IS WHAT IT IS AND SUCK ING TAXES OUT
OF YOUR FEAR WON'T CHANGE IT. Grow up.
Are you high or do you have selective
observation syndrome?
It's awfully sad! We humans are
destroying what we should take care of.
Helpful behaviors
support climate science
tone of post
dismissive
43%
39%
content of post
23%
15%
13%
10%
5%
0%
informative
post
link or citation
support
another
authoritative
tone
n = 470 posts
Unhelpful behaviors
support climate science
dismissive
“99.9 % of the scientific community disagree with you. Your
IQ must be off the scale and your mastery of the research
second to none. I wonder why I've never heard of you
before. Strange.”
21%
19%
16%
16%
12%
8%
5%
2%
attack another
snarky tone
angry tone
insulting tone
n = 470 posts
Vitriol index
• Frequency of unhelpful behaviors in content or tone
attack
another
+
snarky
tone
+
insulting
tone
• Added across all posts, all stances
• Calculated for each media outlet
+
angry
tone
Vitriol index
69
48
45
35
34
30
NY
Times
Wash
Post
CNN
FOX
NASA
NOAA
Vitriol index
69
48
45
35
34
30
NY
Times
Wash
Post
CNN
FOX
NASA
NOAA
Productivity index
Frequency of helpful behaviors
informative
post
+
link or
citation
+
support
another
+
authoritative
tone
Productivity index
95
68
64
88
58
44
NY
Times
Wash
Post
CNN
FOX
NASA
NOAA
Rationale: what is the basis for the comment?
science
humanity/ethics
policy
emotion
Rationale
Support climate science
Dismiss climate science
science 67%
science 60%
policy 16%
humanity/ethics 8%
emotion 2%
policy 21%
humanity/ethics 2%
emotion 0%
n = 600 posts, 470 posts had a discernable rationale
Dismissive arguments
climate changes on its own (26)
this is not actually a
problem (13)
scientists don’t know (12)
integrity of science
it’s a big conspiracy/scam
(12)
scientists are corrupt
(11)
1970’s ice age
(8)
kills jobs (8)
So, does all of this conversation
accomplish anything?
Folkloric data
climate change
You change your mind
They change their mind
No one changes
anything and
everyone’s pissed
Measured data
climate change
You change your mind
They change their mind
No one changes
anything and
everyone’s pissed
Anecdotal data
climate change
You change your mind
They change their mind
admit to learning at
least some science
from you
No one changes
anything and
everyone’s pissed
My favorite examples of interesting science
1. Of course sea level is rising, that’s because of all the
boats we’re adding to the oceans.
2. Melting ice sheets will not raise sea level. The water will
remain pooled up on land and not affect the oceans.
3. Using PPM as a unit of measure is part of the scam
because it makes a small amount sound like a lot.
“It sounds good when you say a 100% increase in PPM
since industrial revolution began”
“Be open minded! Think for yourself! Don’t be a sheeple!”
Limitations
• Subjective
• Only one coder
• Limited sample size
• Only one article per source
• Novel methodology
Next steps
• Further work on understanding how people can change
their minds.
• Looking at types of conversations and the role of values.
• Open to collaborations. There are many things to learn
from this type of data.
Recommendations if you engage on social media
(easy)
• At least ‘like’ posts that defend science or stand up to
denialist rhetoric.
• Contribute positive, likeable posts that people
can rally around. The most liked posts rise to
the top of the thread.
• Take time to post and encourage others who are
defending climate science, encouraging solutions, etc.
“Great explanation Scott!
Your voice of reason is helpful here.”
• Look for genuine questions and answer them in plain
English.
Recommendations (harder)
• If you are inclined, refute denialist rhetoric. Be nice, be
relatable, be authoritative. You won’t change the person’s
mind but you will contribute an important voice of reason
and knowledge to the conversation.
• Ask questions. Dig deeper, probe for understanding, and
help uncover biases.
“You mentioned that money is driving the science.
That is interesting. Which side do you
think has more money at stake?”
• Don’t bother engaging in a detailed tête-à-tête. Protracted
battles tend to strengthen everyone’s position rather than
create understanding. (Belief polarization)
Recommendations for agencies
• Your vitriol and productivity scores
95
are good.
• Sponsored posts can invite trouble.
• Denier posts need to be managed.
Do not let deniers proliferate. Do
not legitimize them or give them a
platform.
• By and large, your comments are
kept in check by a community of
faithful, smart, pleasant people.
• Show them some appreciation.
34
Takeaways for everyone
• Participate where and how you can.
• Values underlie climate denial
• Be deliberate with your framing
• Help clarify genuine misunderstandings
• Find common ground
• Emphasize solutions and their benefits
• Encourage action and engagement
• Be nice, be effective
• Don’t feed the trolls
Read more at Yale Climate Connections
http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org
Part 1 published last week
Part 2 in March
Thank you!
Contact info and links to relevant work at
karinkirk.com
Healing the Divide on Climate Change
TEDx
[email protected]