Friday, April 21, 2023 1The Institute for Science and Society
A corpus-based analysis of the debate around climate change in online user comments
Dr Luke Collins
From Greenhouse Effect to Climategate: A systematic study of climate change as a complex social issue.
04/21/23 The Institute for Science and Society 2
Project Summary:
Climate change is a fascinating case for research into:
the relation between science and society
the dynamics of communication
the emergence and development of protest movements
a systematic, comparative study of the dynamics of social change and human responses to
social change.
What is the role of language (and especially of metaphor)?
What are the social representations surrounding climate change and how are they formed?
What role do social and technological networks play in this process?
04/21/23 3
04/21/23 4
Views on anthropogenic climate change:
denialists
skeptics
contrarians
alarmists
warmists
lukewarmists
catastrophists
04/21/23 5
Online journalism and democracy
The “enhancement of communal spirits and values” or the “facilitation of rational discourse in the public sphere”
(Dahlberg, 2001: 158).
The shift from journalism as a ‘lecture’ to a ‘conversation’ (Gillmor, 2003).
However:
some scholars suggest that the freedom and openness associated with online discourse has actually led to a
fragmentation of public space (Sunstein, 2001).
It is suggested that the space for freedom of expression has led to polarized and extreme views.
Painter (2011: 5) observes that “climate change has become (to different degrees) more of a politicised issue, which
politically polarised print media pick up on and reflect”.
04/21/23 6
Deliberation
“a political process through which a group of people carefully examines a problem and arrives at a
well-reasoned solution after a period of inclusive, respectful consideration of diverse points of view”
Manosevitch and Walker (2009: 8).
Interactivity
Multiple-to-one asynchronous interaction
Hypertextuality: hyperlinks and multimedia content (text, videos, images)
Online newspapers can be modified in response to user comments.
04/21/23 7
04/21/23 8
Title Author Date Comments
That snow outside is what global warming looks likehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/20/uk-snow-global-warming?INTCMP=SRCH
George Monbiot 20/12/2010 1679
The climate denial industry is out to dupe the public. And it's workinghttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/dec/07/climate-change-denial-industry?INTCMP=SRCH
George Monbiot 07/12/2009 1422
Global warming rigged? Here's the email I'd need to seehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/23/global-warming-leaked-email-climate-scientists?INTCMP=SRCH
George Monbiot 23/11/2009 1296
The trouble with trusting complex sciencehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/mar/08/belief-in-climate-change-science?INTCMP=SRCH
George Monbiot 08/03/2010 1202
That sleighbell winter? It's all part of climate change denialhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/02/sleighbell-winter-climate-change-denial?INTCMP=SRCH
George Monbiot 02/01/2012 1146
‘Climate change’ articles from The Guardian:
04/21/23 9
04/21/23 10
Corpus Linguistics:
04/21/23 11
Corpus Linguistics:
04/21/23 12
Corpus Linguistics:
04/21/23 13
Semantic Tagging:
453 sub categories
04/21/23 14
Semantic Tagging:‘excited’
X Psychological states and processes
X5 Attention
X5.2 Excited/Energetic
X5.2+ ‘excited’
X5.2- ‘apathetic’
‘jump_on_the_bandwagon’
S Social actions, states and processes
S1.1.3 Participation
S1.1.3+ ‘jump_on_the_bandwagon’
S1.1.3- ‘bunk_off’
04/21/23 15
Grammatical Tag (CLAWS) Semantic Tag (USAS)
PPIS1 1st person sing. subjective personal pronoun (I) I Z8 Pronouns
VV0 base form of lexical verb (e.g. give, work) like E2+ Like
AT1 singular article (e.g. a, an, every) a Z5 Grammatical Bin
JJ General adjective particular A4.2+ Detailed
NN1 singular common noun (e.g. book, girl) shade O4.3 Colour and Colour Patterns
IO of (as preposition) of Z5 Grammatical Bin
NN1 singular common noun (e.g. book, girl) lipstick B4 Cleaning and Personal Care
04/21/23 Event Name and Venue 16
Broad semantic comparisons:
‘Climate change’ articles from The Guardian and The Daily Mail
3 discussion threads with the highest number of comments
Top 10 semantic categories for each discussion thread
Recurring topics within discussion threads prompted by articles on climate
change (The Guardian vs. The Daily Mail)
04/21/23 17
Top Semantic categories: The Guardian The Daily Mail
04/21/23 18
Top Semantic categories: The Guardian The Daily Mail
04/21/23 19
Top Semantic categories: The Guardian The Daily Mail
04/21/23 20
Top Semantic categories: The Guardian The Daily Mail
04/21/23 21
W4 Weather
Climate [430], weather [176], snow [67], snowfall [12], cloud [12], wind [11], heatwave [9], climatic [8]…
O4.6+ Temperature: Hot / on fire
Warming [361], warm [50], heat [45], hot [34], hotter [28], hottest [27], heating [14]…
Y1 Science and technology in general
Science [139], scientists [81], scientific [77], scientist [18], physics [9], GM [8], scientifically [6], nuclear [6]…
A5.2+ Evaluation: True
Evidence [102], fact [59], true [40], in_fact [34], facts [29], truth [20], proof [16], prove [14], credible [11], proven [11]…
Z3 Other proper names
AGW [166], the_sun [29], andyjr75 [22], Gaia [21], Nasa [20], IPCC [19], Bluecloud [19], gourdonboy [19], guardian [16]…
O4.6- Temperature: Cold
Cold [140], cooling [50], freezing [23], cooler [10], freezes [10], frozen [9], freeze [8], cool [6]…
A3+ Existing
Is [1066], are [385], be [322], ‘s [252], was [174], been [87], were [73], being [57], am [53], ‘m [38], ‘re [29], events [27]…
A2.2 Cause&Effect/Connection
Why [182], effect [43], cause [42], due_to [39], because_of [34], based_on [33], result [32], caused [28], effects [23]…
O4.6 Temperature
Temperature [99], temperatures [67], thermometers [5], thermal [4], melted [3], temperature_based [2]…
Z6 Negative
Not [503], n’t [444], no [166], nothing [25], nor [10], none [9], neither [8], negative [6], no-one [4], no_such [4], non [3], not_really [2]…
04/21/23 22
W4 Weather
Climate [430], weather [176], snow [67], snowfall [12], cloud [12], wind [11], heatwave [9], climatic [8]…
O4.6+ Temperature: Hot / on fire
Warming [361], warm [50], heat [45], hot [34], hotter [28], hottest [27], heating [14]…
Y1 Science and technology in general
Science [139], scientists [81], scientific [77], scientist [18], physics [9], GM [8], scientifically [6], nuclear [6]…
A5.2+ Evaluation: True
Evidence [102], fact [59], true [40], in_fact [34], facts [29], truth [20], proof [16], prove [14], credible [11], proven [11]…
Z3 Other proper names
AGW [166], the_sun [29], andyjr75 [22], Gaia [21], Nasa [20], IPCC [19], Bluecloud [19], gourdonboy [19], guardian [16]…
O4.6- Temperature: Cold
Cold [140], cooling [50], freezing [23], cooler [10], freezes [10], frozen [9], freeze [8], cool [6]…
A3+ Existing
Is [1066], are [385], be [322], ‘s [252], was [174], been [87], were [73], being [57], am [53], ‘m [38], ‘re [29], events [27]…
A2.2 Cause&Effect/Connection
Why [182], effect [43], cause [42], due_to [39], because_of [34], based_on [33], result [32], caused [28], effects [23]…
O4.6 Temperature
Temperature [99], temperatures [67], thermometers [5], thermal [4], melted [3], temperature_based [2]…
Z6 Negative
Not [503], n’t [444], no [166], nothing [25], nor [10], none [9], neither [8], negative [6], no-one [4], no_such [4], non [3], not_really [2]…
04/21/23 23
W4 Weather
Climate [430], weather [176], snow [67], snowfall [12], cloud [12], wind [11], heatwave [9], climatic [8]…
O4.6+ Temperature: Hot / on fire
Warming [361], warm [50], heat [45], hot [34], hotter [28], hottest [27], heating [14]…
Y1 Science and technology in general
Science [139], scientists [81], scientific [77], scientist [18], physics [9], GM [8], scientifically [6], nuclear [6]…
A5.2+ Evaluation: True
Evidence [102], fact [59], true [40], in_fact [34], facts [29], truth [20], proof [16], prove [14], credible [11], proven [11]…
Z3 Other proper names
AGW [166], the_sun [29], andyjr75 [22], Gaia [21], Nasa [20], IPCC [19], Bluecloud [19], gourdonboy [19], guardian [16]…
O4.6- Temperature: Cold
Cold [140], cooling [50], freezing [23], cooler [10], freezes [10], frozen [9], freeze [8], cool [6]…
A3+ Existing
Is [1066], are [385], be [322], ‘s [252], was [174], been [87], were [73], being [57], am [53], ‘m [38], ‘re [29], events [27]…
A2.2 Cause&Effect/Connection
Why [182], effect [43], cause [42], due_to [39], because_of [34], based_on [33], result [32], caused [28], effects [23]…
O4.6 Temperature
Temperature [99], temperatures [67], thermometers [5], thermal [4], melted [3], temperature_based [2]…
Z6 Negative
Not [503], n’t [444], no [166], nothing [25], nor [10], none [9], neither [8], negative [6], no-one [4], no_such [4], non [3], not_really [2]…
04/21/23 24
W4 Weather
Climate [430], weather [176], snow [67], snowfall [12], cloud [12], wind [11], heatwave [9], climatic [8]…
O4.6+ Temperature: Hot / on fire
Warming [361], warm [50], heat [45], hot [34], hotter [28], hottest [27], heating [14]…
Y1 Science and technology in general
Science [139], scientists [81], scientific [77], scientist [18], physics [9], GM [8], scientifically [6], nuclear [6]…
A5.2+ Evaluation: True
Evidence [102], fact [59], true [40], in_fact [34], facts [29], truth [20], proof [16], prove [14], credible [11], proven [11]…
Z3 Other proper names
AGW [166], the_sun [29], andyjr75 [22], Gaia [21], Nasa [20], IPCC [19], Bluecloud [19], gourdonboy [19], guardian [16]…
O4.6- Temperature: Cold
Cold [140], cooling [50], freezing [23], cooler [10], freezes [10], frozen [9], freeze [8], cool [6]…
A3+ Existing
Is [1066], are [385], be [322], ‘s [252], was [174], been [87], were [73], being [57], am [53], ‘m [38], ‘re [29], events [27]…
A2.2 Cause&Effect/Connection
Why [182], effect [43], cause [42], due_to [39], because_of [34], based_on [33], result [32], caused [28], effects [23]…
O4.6 Temperature
Temperature [99], temperatures [67], thermometers [5], thermal [4], melted [3], temperature_based [2]…
Z6 Negative
Not [503], n’t [444], no [166], nothing [25], nor [10], none [9], neither [8], negative [6], no-one [4], no_such [4], non [3], not_really [2]…
04/21/23 25
W4 Weather
Climate [430], weather [176], snow [67], snowfall [12], cloud [12], wind [11], heatwave [9], climatic [8]…
O4.6+ Temperature: Hot / on fire
Warming [361], warm [50], heat [45], hot [34], hotter [28], hottest [27], heating [14]…
Y1 Science and technology in general
Science [139], scientists [81], scientific [77], scientist [18], physics [9], GM [8], scientifically [6], nuclear [6]…
A5.2+ Evaluation: True
Evidence [102], fact [59], true [40], in_fact [34], facts [29], truth [20], proof [16], prove [14], credible [11], proven [11]…
Z3 Other proper names
AGW [166], the_sun [29], andyjr75 [22], Gaia [21], Nasa [20], IPCC [19], Bluecloud [19], gourdonboy [19], guardian [16]…
O4.6- Temperature: Cold
Cold [140], cooling [50], freezing [23], cooler [10], freezes [10], frozen [9], freeze [8], cool [6]…
A3+ Existing
Is [1066], are [385], be [322], ‘s [252], was [174], been [87], were [73], being [57], am [53], ‘m [38], ‘re [29], events [27]…
A2.2 Cause&Effect/Connection
Why [182], effect [43], cause [42], due_to [39], because_of [34], based_on [33], result [32], caused [28], effects [23]…
O4.6 Temperature
Temperature [99], temperatures [67], thermometers [5], thermal [4], melted [3], temperature_based [2]…
Z6 Negative
Not [503], n’t [444], no [166], nothing [25], nor [10], none [9], neither [8], negative [6], no-one [4], no_such [4], non [3], not_really [2]…
04/21/23 26
Key themes in context: the process of ‘cluster tagging’
04/21/23 27
W4 Weather
O4.6+ Temperature: Hot / on fire
Y1 Science and technology in general
A5.2+ Evaluation: True
Z3 Other proper names
O4.6- Temperature: Cold
A3+ Existing
A2.2 Cause&Effect/Connection
O4.6 Temperature
Z6 Negative
04/21/23 28
W4 Weather
O4.6+ Temperature: Hot / on fire
Y1 Science and technology in general
A5.2+ Evaluation: True
Z3 Other proper names
O4.6- Temperature: Cold
A3+ Existing
A2.2 Cause&Effect/Connection
O4.6 Temperature
Z6 Negative
04/21/23 29
04/21/23 30
04/21/23 31
04/21/23 32
04/21/23 33
04/21/23 34
04/21/23 35
04/21/23 36
04/21/23 37
04/21/23 38
04/21/23 39
04/21/23 40
04/21/23 41
Sampling:
Comments Words
Original discussion thread: 1679 163 180
10 key categories: 17 (1.01%) 5 264 (3.23%)
9 of 10 key categories: 64 (3.81%) 16 451 (10.08%)
8 of 10 key categories: 159 (9.47%) 36 103 (22.12%)
04/21/23 42
‘Heteroglossic engagement’: describes utterances which engage with dialogic alternatives.
White’s (2003) taxonomy of intersubjective stance
‘Dialogically contractive’
Disclaim:
to Deny: “New or tougher legislation is not going to solve the problem”
to Counter: “But we already possess laws against threatening behaviour”
Proclaim:
to Endorse: “As Hastie so compellingly argued..”.
to Concur: “The Premier, of course, wants us to think..”
to Pronounce: “I would contend that this enviable level of tolerance..”
04/21/23 43
‘Heteroglossic engagement’: describes utterances which engage with dialogic alternatives.
White’s (2003) taxonomy of intersubjective stance
‘Dialogically expansive’
Entertain:
“If we are really witnessing an increase in racial intolerance, perhaps it is time..”
Attribute:
to Acknowledge: “the Premier has stated that tougher anti-racial hatred laws..”
to Distance: “the Commissioner and her comrades claim that..”.
‘Justification’ (‘modal consequentiality’):
looking to validate or explain a stance position.
04/21/23 44
Thewrongstuff 23 December 2010 11:20am 8
It’s not illogical.
As that post said, AGW is about an increase in average global temperatures that is being caused by human factors/activity (increasing the
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere) and nothing else. There is a natural warming and cooling cycle (which is why there have been ice ages and
not-ice ages) and the Earth is currently on the warming part of the cycle, but human factors/activity is making that warming more rapid than it
would usually be.
As deconvoluter said above, the controversy starts when you start trying to predict how this extra warming/additional energy in the atmosphere
will affect the climate and the weather. It’s controversial because prediction is an inexact science and something like the precautionary
principle is always go to be controversial because you’re asking to people to take action to avoid something that might not actually happen.
A lot of scientists think the effect of the extra warming will be bad overall; that is, AGW will lead to adverse climate change and weather. AGW
and "climate change" are not referring to the same thing (I've no idea how that conflation happened); one is caused by the other, and nobody
would be bothered about it (climate change) if it could be proven that the risk of it being bad overall was zero.
If the atmosphere could be compared to a pan of boiling water, then AGW would be like turning up the heat a bit and climate change would be
the more turbulent boiling and extra steam or whatever. Some parts of the Earth will end up being colder; some parts will end up being hotter,
and the weather is more likely to be chaotic as a consequence of more energy being in the system/atmosphere. And colder winters in some
parts of the world (followed by hotter summers) are an example of extreme weather.
Extreme (cold) weather won’t falsify AGW; as others have said, falsifying AGW would involve proving that average global temperatures are not
rising and that somehow proving that de-vegetating most of the planet and burning massive quantities of fossiled carbon and hydrocarbons
cannot alter the composition of the atmosphere so that the rate of heat transfer from the Earth to space is reduced (the heat isn’t trapped; it
just takes longer to get out = warming).
04/21/23 45
Thewrongstuff 23 December 2010 11:20am 8
It’s not illogical.
As that post said, AGW is about an increase in average global temperatures that is being caused by human factors/activity (increasing the
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere) and nothing else. There is a natural warming and cooling cycle (which is why there have been ice ages and
not-ice ages) and the Earth is currently on the warming part of the cycle, but human factors/activity is making that warming more rapid than it
would usually be.
As deconvoluter said above, the controversy starts when you start trying to predict how this extra warming/additional energy in the
atmosphere will affect the climate and the weather. It’s controversial because prediction is an inexact science and something like the
precautionary principle is always go to be controversial because you’re asking to people to take action to avoid something that might not
actually happen.
A lot of scientists think the effect of the extra warming will be bad overall; that is, AGW will lead to adverse climate change and weather. AGW
and "climate change" are not referring to the same thing (I've no idea how that conflation happened); one is caused by the other, and nobody
would be bothered about it (climate change) if it could be proven that the risk of it being bad overall was zero.
If the atmosphere could be compared to a pan of boiling water, then AGW would be like turning up the heat a bit and climate change would be
the more turbulent boiling and extra steam or whatever. Some parts of the Earth will end up being colder; some parts will end up being hotter,
and the weather is more likely to be chaotic as a consequence of more energy being in the system/atmosphere. And colder winters in some
parts of the world (followed by hotter summers) are an example of extreme weather.
Extreme (cold) weather won’t falsify AGW; as others have said, falsifying AGW would involve proving that average global temperatures are
not rising and that somehow proving that de-vegetating most of the planet and burning massive quantities of fossiled carbon and hydrocarbons
cannot alter the composition of the atmosphere so that the rate of heat transfer from the Earth to space is reduced (the heat isn’t trapped; it
just takes longer to get out = warming).
04/21/23 46
Thewrongstuff 23 December 2010 11:20am 8
It’s not illogical.
As that post said, AGW is about an increase in average global temperatures that is being caused by human factors/activity (increasing the
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere) and nothing else. There is a natural warming and cooling cycle (which is why there have been ice ages and
not-ice ages) and the Earth is currently on the warming part of the cycle, but human factors/activity is making that warming more rapid than it
would usually be.
As deconvoluter said above, the controversy starts when you start trying to predict how this extra warming/additional energy in the atmosphere
will affect the climate and the weather. It’s controversial because prediction is an inexact science and something like the precautionary
principle is always go to be controversial because you’re asking to people to take action to avoid something that might not actually happen.
A lot of scientists think the effect of the extra warming will be bad overall; that is, AGW will lead to adverse climate change and weather.
AGW and "climate change" are not referring to the same thing (I've no idea how that conflation happened); one is caused by the other, and
nobody would be bothered about it (climate change) if it could be proven that the risk of it being bad overall was zero.
If the atmosphere could be compared to a pan of boiling water, then AGW would be like turning up the heat a bit and climate change would be
the more turbulent boiling and extra steam or whatever. Some parts of the Earth will end up being colder; some parts will end up being hotter,
and the weather is more likely to be chaotic as a consequence of more energy being in the system/atmosphere. And colder winters in some
parts of the world (followed by hotter summers) are an example of extreme weather.
Extreme (cold) weather won’t falsify AGW; as others have said, falsifying AGW would involve proving that average global temperatures are not
rising and that somehow proving that de-vegetating most of the planet and burning massive quantities of fossiled carbon and hydrocarbons
cannot alter the composition of the atmosphere so that the rate of heat transfer from the Earth to space is reduced (the heat isn’t trapped; it
just takes longer to get out = warming).
04/21/23 47
Thewrongstuff 23 December 2010 11:20am 8
It’s not illogical.
As that post said, AGW is about an increase in average global temperatures that is being caused by human factors/activity (increasing the
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere) and nothing else. There is a natural warming and cooling cycle (which is why there have been ice ages and
not-ice ages) and the Earth is currently on the warming part of the cycle, but human factors/activity is making that warming more rapid than it
would usually be.
As deconvoluter said above, the controversy starts when you start trying to predict how this extra warming/additional energy in the atmosphere
will affect the climate and the weather. It’s controversial because prediction is an inexact science and something like the precautionary
principle is always go to be controversial because you’re asking to people to take action to avoid something that might not actually
happen.
A lot of scientists think the effect of the extra warming will be bad overall; that is, AGW will lead to adverse climate change and weather. AGW
and "climate change" are not referring to the same thing (I've no idea how that conflation happened); one is caused by the other, and nobody
would be bothered about it (climate change) if it could be proven that the risk of it being bad overall was zero.
If the atmosphere could be compared to a pan of boiling water, then AGW would be like turning up the heat a bit and climate change would be
the more turbulent boiling and extra steam or whatever. Some parts of the Earth will end up being colder; some parts will end up being hotter,
and the weather is more likely to be chaotic as a consequence of more energy being in the system/atmosphere. And colder winters in some
parts of the world (followed by hotter summers) are an example of extreme weather.
Extreme (cold) weather won’t falsify AGW; as others have said, falsifying AGW would involve proving that average global temperatures are not
rising and that somehow proving that de-vegetating most of the planet and burning massive quantities of fossiled carbon and hydrocarbons
cannot alter the composition of the atmosphere so that the rate of heat transfer from the Earth to space is reduced (the heat isn’t trapped; it
just takes longer to get out = warming).
04/21/23 48
Thewrongstuff 23 December 2010 11:20am 8
It’s not illogical.
As that post said, AGW is about an increase in average global temperatures that is being caused by human factors/activity (increasing the
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere) and nothing else. There is a natural warming and cooling cycle (which is why there have been ice ages and
not-ice ages) and the Earth is currently on the warming part of the cycle, but human factors/activity is making that warming more rapid than it
would usually be.
As deconvoluter said above, the controversy starts when you start trying to predict how this extra warming/additional energy in the atmosphere
will affect the climate and the weather. It’s controversial because prediction is an inexact science and something like the precautionary
principle is always go to be controversial because you’re asking to people to take action to avoid something that might not actually
happen.
A lot of scientists think the effect of the extra warming will be bad overall; that is, AGW will lead to adverse climate change and weather. AGW
and "climate change" are not referring to the same thing (I've no idea how that conflation happened); one is caused by the other, and nobody
would be bothered about it (climate change) if it could be proven that the risk of it being bad overall was zero.
If the atmosphere could be compared to a pan of boiling water, then AGW would be like turning up the heat a bit and climate change would be
the more turbulent boiling and extra steam or whatever. Some parts of the Earth will end up being colder; some parts will end up being hotter,
and the weather is more likely to be chaotic as a consequence of more energy being in the system/atmosphere. And colder winters in some
parts of the world (followed by hotter summers) are an example of extreme weather.
Extreme (cold) weather won’t falsify AGW; as others have said, falsifying AGW would involve proving that average global temperatures are not
rising and that somehow proving that de-vegetating most of the planet and burning massive quantities of fossiled carbon and hydrocarbons
cannot alter the composition of the atmosphere so that the rate of heat transfer from the Earth to space is reduced (the heat isn’t trapped; it
just takes longer to get out = warming).
04/21/23 49
Thewrongstuff 23 December 2010 11:20am 8
It’s not illogical.
As that post said, AGW is about an increase in average global temperatures that is being caused by human factors/activity (increasing the
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere) and nothing else. There is a natural warming and cooling cycle (which is why there have been ice ages and
not-ice ages) and the Earth is currently on the warming part of the cycle, but human factors/activity is making that warming more rapid than it
would usually be.
As deconvoluter said above, the controversy starts when you start trying to predict how this extra warming/additional energy in the atmosphere
will affect the climate and the weather. It’s controversial because prediction is an inexact science and something like the precautionary
principle is always go to be controversial because you’re asking to people to take action to avoid something that might not actually
happen.
A lot of scientists think the effect of the extra warming will be bad overall; that is, AGW will lead to adverse climate change and weather. AGW
and "climate change" are not referring to the same thing (I've no idea how that conflation happened); one is caused by the other, and nobody
would be bothered about it (climate change) if it could be proven that the risk of it being bad overall was zero.
If the atmosphere could be compared to a pan of boiling water, then AGW would be like turning up the heat a bit and climate change would be
the more turbulent boiling and extra steam or whatever. Some parts of the Earth will end up being colder; some parts will end up being hotter,
and the weather is more likely to be chaotic as a consequence of more energy being in the system/atmosphere. And colder winters in some
parts of the world (followed by hotter summers) are an example of extreme weather.
Extreme (cold) weather won’t falsify AGW; as others have said, falsifying AGW would involve proving that average global temperatures are not
rising and that somehow proving that de-vegetating most of the planet and burning massive quantities of fossiled carbon and hydrocarbons
cannot alter the composition of the atmosphere so that the rate of heat transfer from the Earth to space is reduced (the heat isn’t trapped; it
just takes longer to get out = warming).
04/21/23 50
Thewrongstuff 23 December 2010 11:20am 8
It’s not illogical.
As that post said, AGW is about an increase in average global temperatures that is being caused by human factors/activity (increasing the
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere) and nothing else. There is a natural warming and cooling cycle (which is why there have been ice ages and
not-ice ages) and the Earth is currently on the warming part of the cycle, but human factors/activity is making that warming more rapid than it
would usually be.
As deconvoluter said above, the controversy starts when you start trying to predict how this extra warming/additional energy in the atmosphere
will affect the climate and the weather. It’s controversial because prediction is an inexact science and something like the precautionary
principle is always go to be controversial because you’re asking to people to take action to avoid something that might not actually
happen.
A lot of scientists think the effect of the extra warming will be bad overall; that is, AGW will lead to adverse climate change and weather. AGW
and "climate change" are not referring to the same thing (I've no idea how that conflation happened); one is caused by the other, and nobody
would be bothered about it (climate change) if it could be proven that the risk of it being bad overall was zero.
If the atmosphere could be compared to a pan of boiling water, then AGW would be like turning up the heat a bit and climate change
would be the more turbulent boiling and extra steam or whatever. Some parts of the Earth will end up being colder; some parts will end up
being hotter, and the weather is more likely to be chaotic as a consequence of more energy being in the system/atmosphere. And colder
winters in some parts of the world (followed by hotter summers) are an example of extreme weather.
Extreme (cold) weather won’t falsify AGW; as others have said, falsifying AGW would involve proving that average global temperatures are not
rising and that somehow proving that de-vegetating most of the planet and burning massive quantities of fossiled carbon and hydrocarbons
cannot alter the composition of the atmosphere so that the rate of heat transfer from the Earth to space is reduced (the heat isn’t trapped; it
just takes longer to get out = warming).
04/21/23 51
Thewrongstuff 23 December 2010 11:20am 8
It’s not illogical.
As that post said, AGW is about an increase in average global temperatures that is being caused by human factors/activity (increasing
the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere) and nothing else. There is a natural warming and cooling cycle (which is why there have been ice
ages and not-ice ages) and the Earth is currently on the warming part of the cycle, but human factors/activity is making that warming more
rapid than it would usually be.
As deconvoluter said above, the controversy starts when you start trying to predict how this extra warming/additional energy in the atmosphere
will affect the climate and the weather. It’s controversial because prediction is an inexact science and something like the precautionary
principle is always go to be controversial because you’re asking to people to take action to avoid something that might not actually happen.
A lot of scientists think the effect of the extra warming will be bad overall; that is, AGW will lead to adverse climate change and weather. AGW
and "climate change" are not referring to the same thing (I've no idea how that conflation happened); one is caused by the other, and nobody
would be bothered about it (climate change) if it could be proven that the risk of it being bad overall was zero.
If the atmosphere could be compared to a pan of boiling water, then AGW would be like turning up the heat a bit and climate change would be
the more turbulent boiling and extra steam or whatever. Some parts of the Earth will end up being colder; some parts will end up being hotter,
and the weather is more likely to be chaotic as a consequence of more energy being in the system/atmosphere. And colder winters in some
parts of the world (followed by hotter summers) are an example of extreme weather.
Extreme (cold) weather won’t falsify AGW; as others have said, falsifying AGW would involve proving that average global temperatures are
not rising and that somehow proving that de-vegetating most of the planet and burning massive quantities of fossiled carbon and hydrocarbons
cannot alter the composition of the atmosphere so that the rate of heat transfer from the Earth to space is reduced (the heat isn’t trapped; it
just takes longer to get out = warming).
04/21/23 52
User Comments Aggregate %
JBowers 99 5.90
ElliottCB 62 9.59
Bluecloud 61 13.22
HypatiaLee 57 16.62
georgecoldwell 39 18.94
truthisforever 34 20.96
andyjr75 32 22.87
porgythecat 29 24.60
gourdonboy 28 26.27
turningtide 27 27.87
Of 558 different contributors 363 (65%) only commented once.
User CommentsReference
s
andyjr75 32 24
Bluecloud 61 22
gourdonboy 28 19
JBowers 99 15
georgecoldwell 39 15
macsporan 22 15
HypatiaLee 57 15
derekbloom 7 14
Simongah 8 12
euangray 18 8
04/21/23 53
Looking for potential for deliberation and interactivity
‘Dialogically contractive’ vs. ‘dialogically expansive’
‘Dialogical expansion’ allows alternative views to contribute
Encourage more ‘dialogic expansion’ as part of the deliberate process
Acknowledge uncertainties
Summary:
04/21/23 54
Corpus linguistics can identify (interactional) patterns in the discussion thread
Semantic grouping identifies key themes in the discussion thread
‘Cluster tagging’ identifies key comments in the thread
Can be used to extract a key sample
Condenses the data in order to make multiple comparisons
Applied to:
interview transcripts with IPCC contributors to discern key quotes
Tweets
Summary: