bs_bs_banner The Geographical Journal, Vol. 179, No. 1, March 2013, pp. 74–86, doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4959.2012.00479.x Climate change and ‘climategate’ in online reader comments: a mixed methods study NELYA KOTEYKO*, RUSI JASPAL† AND BRIGITTE NERLICH† *Department of Media and Communication, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH E-mail: nk158@le.ac.uk †School of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD This paper was accepted for publication in June 2012 Climate change has rarely been out of the public spotlight in the first decade of this century. The high-profile international meetings and controversies such as ‘climategate’ have highlighted the fact that it is as much a political issue as it is a scientific one, while also drawing our attention to the role of social media in reflecting, promoting or resisting such politicisation. In this article, we propose a framework for analysing one type of social media venue that so far has received little attention from social scientists – online reader comments. Like media reporting on climate change, reader comments on this reporting contribute to the diverse, complex and contested discourses on climate change, and can reveal the meanings and discursive resources brought to the ongoing debate by laypeople rather than political elites. The proposed framework draws on research in computer- mediated communication, corpus linguistics and discourse analysis and takes into account both the content of such ‘lay talk’ and its linguistic characteristics within the specific parameters of the web-based context. Using word frequencies, qualitative study of co-text and user ratings, we analyse a large volume of comments published on the UK tabloid newspaper website at two different points in time – before and after the East Anglia controversy. The results reveal how stereotypes of science and politics are appropriated in this type of discourse, how readers’ constructions of climate science have changed after ‘climategate’, and how climate-sceptic arguments are adopted and contested in computer-mediated peer-to-peer interaction. KEY WORDS: climate scepticism, discourse analysis, online reader comments, ‘climategate’, corpus linguistics 2010). In this study, we focus on one type of such Introduction web-based data that so far has not been explored in I n parallel with print ‘letters to the editor’ as an relation to climate change – online reader comments. outlet for reader views, newspapers currently We will present results of our analysis of comments provide a range of opportunities for audiences to published on the website of the Daily Mail, the UK’s communicate their opinions and discuss issues in real second biggest-selling newspaper. time. Although research shows that such Internet- Online publishing often means easy access and few based opportunities remain under-utilised, especially restrictions on the size of online contributions, trans- by tabloid readers (Richardson and Stanyer 2011), the lating into the vast volume of texts that present meth- issue of climate change has recently attracted a rela- odological challenges in terms of data analysis. In this tively large number of comments across UK newspa- paper we therefore also want to discuss a mixed per platforms. For scholars of the sociology of science, methods approach to the analysis of such web-based science communication and media studies, such texts data. The proposed approach draws on corpus- represent a unique window into spontaneous and assisted discourse analysis (Partington 2010; Baker creative non-expert conceptualisations of climate et al. 2008) that employs a combination of the quan- change by Internet users. Moreover, such discussions titative study of word frequencies and qualitative are arguably one of the best sources to study such examination of context, and is complemented by sta- dimensions of the climate-change issue as ethics, tistics mined from the source website. The qualitative morality and uncertainty, as online debates show how component is based on the adaptation of the dis- different actors attempt to redefine existing construc- course analytic framework developed by Reisigl tions of various problems and solutions (Koteyko and Wodak (2009) to the constraints of web-based The Geographical Journal Vol. 179 No. 1, pp. 74–86, 2013 © 2012 The Authors. The Geographical Journal © 2012 Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)  Climate change and ‘climategate’ in online reader comments 75 interactions (Herring 2004). The approach can be sively framed by this particular sample of readers, we applied to provide timely insights into the framings of will compare the 2010 online comments with those climate change in different online platforms following published on the Daily Mail website in the year imme- major mediatised events, e.g. political milestones diately preceding the controversy. We suggest that if such as international agreements or indeed controver- the hacking of Climatic Research Unit emails, the sies such as ‘climategate’ and a plethora of other distribution through online socio-technical networks, ‘gates’ that have repeatedly appeared on the climate- and its media framing as ‘climategate’ have left an change scene. impact on readers’ conceptualisations of and views on climate change, this will manifest itself both through qualitative changes (choice of lexis, use of Background and research aims different words) and through quantitative shifts (fre- In November 2009, documents and digitally stored quencies of word use). email correspondence between the Climatic Research We focus on the following research questions: Unit leader Professor Phil Jones and his fellow researchers at the University of East Anglia were pub- 1 What are the frequent topics of, or issues discussed lished on the Internet, just weeks before the United in, comments on tabloid articles dealing with Nations Copenhagen Summit. The data and emails climate change in 2010? were obtained from a back-up server at the Climatic 2 How do these online contributions compare with Research Unit following Freedom of Information reader comments on climate change written before requests in July the same year (Holliman 2011). The November 2009 (in terms of content and main content of these emails was then used as a basis to themes)? argue that scientists were manipulating and withhold- 3 How is climate science discursively constructed by ing the data that disproved the severity of climate the tabloid readers following the ‘climategate’ change, leading to the controversy that was dubbed controversy? ‘climategate’ in the media and blogosphere (Hoffman 2011). Subsequent inquiries cleared the scientists of The secondary, and methodologically oriented, aim wrongdoing, but at the same time called for more is to demonstrate how techniques of corpus-assisted transparency regarding data collection and analysis. analysis can be employed to interrogate increasingly Since then a number of scholars have grappled with large data sets generated online on the topic of what this episode means for climate-change commu- climate change, and in this way complement more nication (Hoffman 2011; Nerlich 2010), whereas qualitative social science frameworks. Although the climate scientists themselves speculated about its analysis is based, in part, on word frequency and legacy, identifying major shifts in ‘how climate science word distribution provided by a specialist software is conducted, how the climate debate is framed and (Scott 2011), we are not concerned with opinion sum- how climate policy is being formed’ (Hulme 2010, marisation (e.g. Potthast and Becker 2010), but aim to np). Hoffman (2011, 7), for example, notes that provide an empirically grounded approach combin- ‘prominent climate deniers’ quickly capitalised on the ing quantitative and qualitative techniques. controversy to challenge the notion that climate change is a legitimate problem. At the same time, Data media scholars have extensively examined how various newspapers, and tabloids in particular The website archive of the Daily Mail, the UK’s second (Boykoff 2008), deal with the issue of climate change, biggest-selling tabloid, was searched for the term whereas opinion polls registered shifts in public per- ‘climate change’ (http://www.thedailymail.co.uk). We ceptions of climate change in the US (Leiserowitz et al. then strategically sampled all available comments on in press), Australia, and the UK (Reser et al. 2011). articles published between January and December However, so far no study has explored how news- 2010 (corpus 1: 4698 comments, 414 462 words) and paper readers have engaged with this issue, and how between November 2008 and November 2009 any future climate change-related topics can be (corpus 2: 1799 comments, 148 895 words). It should studied by science communication scholars in this be noted that not all articles returned through the online space. Holliman (2011, 832) comes close to Daily Mail search facility as containing the phrase this question by speculating that the East Anglia con- ‘climate change’ attracted comments, or were open troversy may have ‘profound implications’ for how for comments. For example, out of 355 news articles climate science is discussed in the digitally mediated on climate change listed on the website, only 233 public sphere, but does not study actual online con- appear to have generated climate change-related tributions. In contrast, this study aims to provide a posts.1 We also do not know how many, and what combined quantitative and qualitative analysis of kind of, comments were removed as a result of climate change-related topics discussed by tabloid moderation. readers in the year following ‘climategate’. To reveal The comments are not representative of public potential shifts in the way climate science is discur- opinion on climate change, but reflect the views of © 2012 The Authors. The Geographical Journal © 2012 Royal Geographical Society The Geographical Journal Vol. 179 No. 1, pp. 74–86, 2013 (with the Institute of British Geographers) 76 Climate change and ‘climategate’ in online reader comments those with access to the Internet who tend to read framework draws on methodological paradigms that online news. There is also a possibility that there is a originated in the study of spoken and written commu- disproportionate participation by readers who have a nication, such as corpus linguistics, pragmatics and strong interest in the topic of climate change. critical discourse analysis, but also allows the inclu- sion of contextual parameters specifically related to computer-mediated communication, such as lack of Conceptual framework audio-visual cues and structural affordances of the In recent years, social sciences have undergone a source website. When applied to online reader com- ‘discursive turn’ marked by an increased interest in ments, which in a previous study (Laslo et al. 2011) the role of language in the creation of our social were found to refer two to three times more to pre- reality (Bhatia et al. 2008). Social studies of environ- ceding comments rather than to a news article on a ment and climate change are not an exception, as scientific issue, such analysis can help reveal how according to Killingsworth and Palmer, ‘As much as ‘top–down’ print media frames and discourses may be the environmental dilemma is a problem of ethics and reproduced or resisted locally in lay talk, and within epistemology, it is also a problem of discourse’ (1992, the specific parameters of a web-based interactional 6). In contrast to the abundance of studies dedicated context. to the analysis of print media discourses (Boykoff Previously, corpus-based techniques were predomi- 2008; Carvalho 2007; Koteyko 2012), social science nantly employed in collections of text counting mil- scholars have so far paid little attention to construc- lions of words in order to make generalisations about tions of climate change in online spaces, and online meanings and grammatical constructions in language reader comments in particular. Like media reporting as whole. More recently, however, the approach of on climate change, reader comments on this reporting corpus-assisted discourse studies espoused by Parting- contribute to the diverse, complex and contested ton (2003 2010) drew attention to the fact that a study social representational field, in which climate change of lexical patterns and how they differ in selected, is embedded, and thereby have the potential to shape often much smaller and purpose-built corpora can thinking and public discourse around this complex also help the researcher examine changes in ‘dis- environmental phenomenon (Jaspal et al. in press). course processes’ that can be conditioned by ‘external As such, online comments can be potentially social influences’ (2010, 86). As we hope to demon- approached from the perspective of social represen- strate below, the study of discourses with corpus lin- tations theory (Moscovici 1988) or frame theory guistic techniques can reveal the politics of naming (Benford and Snow 2000), which share the aim of and framing in the struggle over meaning, rather than gaining an understanding of how language functions semantic changes typically examined in relation to in constituting and transmitting knowledge, although internal linguistic factors (Koteyko 2007). The analysis the large volume of online data remains a major chal- does not stop at mere description of linguistic phe- lenge. In this article we therefore seek to demonstrate nomena but involves discussion of wider issues relat- how a corpus-assisted approach developed for analy- ing to social practice. As such, it can be a useful tool sis of large archives of electronically stored texts or in sociological studies seeking to examine how corpora (Stubbs 2001; Partington 2010) can provide a climate change is discursively constructed using grounded study of online reader data, and at the same language as a means to negotiate, support or chal- time pinpoint areas of interest for a subsequent lenge certain definitions and underlying assumptions detailed analysis within these frameworks. (Alexander 2008). At the same time, those sociological studies that do Two analytical tools are central in the quantitative pay attention to Internet-based discussions on climate part of such analysis: keywords and collocation. Key- change (Lederbogen and Trebbe 2003) still tend to words are used to compare the relative frequency of rely on a type of content analysis that recruits a set of words in any corpus with reference to another corpus. concepts defined by the analyst rather than partici- The first step is to draw lists of words in order of their pants themselves, and also involves classifying state- absolute frequency using the WordList function in ments for what they are rather than what they do WordSmith (Scott 2011), one for each corpus. The (Lamerichs and te Molder 2003). Such an analysis Keywords tool of the same software is then used to inevitably misses out on local interactional business compare the contents of the two lists, relying on chi- that participants may attend to in online spaces, such squared or log-likelihood tests. Those words that are as defending, undermining, constructing and main- unusually frequent in the first list/corpus compared taining authority and so on, and rarely takes into with the frequency of the same word type in the account the specific affordances of the medium second list (or reference corpus) are called keywords (Hutchby 2001). To overcome this limitation, the and are themselves displayed as a list. The more sta- approach to online reader comments adopted in tistically significant an item is, the more key it is (its this article is therefore informed by a linguistic per- keyness value is higher), and the higher it is placed on spective and is closest to what Herring (2004) refers this new list (Partington 2010). The resulting keyword to as ‘computer-mediated discourse analysis’. Our list therefore provides the analyst with words that are The Geographical Journal Vol. 179 No. 1, pp. 74–86, 2013 © 2012 The Authors. The Geographical Journal © 2012 Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)  Climate change and ‘climategate’ in online reader comments 77 salient in one corpus compared with another corpus; readers’ comments with the previous study of climate- it can be a useful tool for identifying lexical items that sceptic discourses (Reisigl and Wodak 2009). warrant further investigation (Baker 2006, 125). The procedure can be repeated by inverting the two Analysis corpora to reveal the items that are salient in the second corpus. Collocation is a lexical relation Keywords: mapping the points of interest between two or more words that have a tendency to co-occur within a few words of each other in running In line with research question 1, we carried out a text (Stubbs 2001, 24). Analysing collocation lists can keyword analysis to establish the main topics charac- reveal the semantic fields in which the word is used terising corpus 1. The keyword analysis is commonly (collocational networks) and give a first glimpse of the employed to provide an indication of aboutness (Part- rhetorical strategies coded implicitly and explicitly in ington 2010). In our study, the overall topic is already language use. Such collocational networks can be in known as only comments to newspaper articles on turn the first step into the meanings of social processes climate change were collected. We therefore and descriptions of social actors constructed by a employed keywords and concordances to learn more given group of language users (and can be explored about actors and processes covered in comments, and further following the abovementioned qualitative the stance towards them. The examination included: frameworks). examining single keywords and links between them In addition to the above techniques, a qualitative (e.g. semantically grouping them in relation to spe- corpus linguistic tool in the form of concordances will cific topic); examining collocates of keywords; gener- be also employed. Concordance analysis (see ating and examining concordances for keywords or Figure 3, for example) allows examination of the collocates. lexical environment of a search term (or node). As As can be seen from Table 1, SCIENCE is the most Baker et al. (2008) observe, in a corpus-assisted study key item on the 2010 list, closely followed by IPCC, the researcher is normally required to analyse numer- DATA, AGW, JONES, BBC, PAPERS, SCIENTISTS, ous concordance lines by hand to identify wider POST, CLIMATEGATE and REPORTS. These keywords themes or patterns that may not be easily evident via leave little doubt about the central topics of comments collocation and keyword analysis. Overall then, key- in 2010, providing an immediate, if somewhat crude, words can provide comparative analysis as well as answer to research question 1. Grouping the key- serve as a useful guide to popular topics, whereas words SCIENCE and SCIENTISTS we can reasonably collocates and concordances provide further contex- assume that the significant bulk of online contribu- tualisation. A combination of both provides a ‘feel’ of tions is focused on climate science, whereas the high the corpus and a ‘map’ of key junctions in texts under keyness value of AGW (anthropogenic global study (Baker et al. 2008, 284). Last but not least, it is warming), JONES (in reference to the research unit important to point out that as in any study using leader Professor Phil Jones) and of course CLIMATE- automation, no matter how good the computational GATE indicate that conceptualisations of climate tools are, the challenge of data interpretation is always science are likely to be closely linked to the East faced by the researcher. In a corpus-assisted study of Anglia controversy. Moving down the list, we can discourse, this translates into the role of the analyst to identify a group of keywords that warrants specific make sense of the linguistic patterns generated by the attention, such as FUNDED, BIASED, CONSPIRACY, software. DENIER, FRAUD, VESTED, DISCREDITED. The qualitative analysis of concordances is Turning to our research question 2, we then exam- informed by the approach developed by Reisigl and ined differences between reader comments on Wodak (2001) for the analysis of positive self- climate change before (corpus 2) and after (corpus 1) presentation and negative other-presentation, which the hacking of emails at the University of East Anglia these authors later applied to examine discourses on by comparing keyword lists drawn for each corpus. As climate change and global warming (Reisigl and we can see from Table 1 displaying the words salient Wodak 2009). We also draw on linguistic studies of in the two corpora, in contrast to corpus 1 where online discussions (Myers 2010; Herring 2004; Arm- comments focused predominantly on (climate) strong et al. 2012). Out of the vast arsenal of analyti- science and technology, comments in corpus 2 cal tools offered by these authors, we have to limit the centred on issues around tax and topics to do with analysis to actors’ description and stance-taking food and transport. evident in strategies employed for predication, label- After examining the collocational list and concord- ling and intensification or mitigation (see Table 3 ances generated for TAX, it became evident that the below). Each of these strategies is manifested textually issue of taxation is used as a basis to argue against through different linguistic (lexical) indicators, such as climate change (e.g. tax ruse, tax scheme, tax scam, specific words used to achieve construction of tax con; see Figure 1) – the framing that, as discussed in-groups and out-groups. Focusing on these catego- below, is also frequently used in comments from ries will allow for a better comparison of the online corpus 1. In this corpus, however, the actors in this © 2012 The Authors. The Geographical Journal © 2012 Royal Geographical Society The Geographical Journal Vol. 179 No. 1, pp. 74–86, 2013 (with the Institute of British Geographers) 78 Climate change and ‘climategate’ in online reader comments Table 1 Keywords (in order of decreasing salience)2 Corpus 1 SCIENCE, IPCC, DATA, AGW, JONES, BBC, PAPERS, POST SCIENTISTS, CLIMATEGATE, REPORTS, GLACIERS, SHORT BIN, MET, SOURCES, EMAILS, INTEREST, CAMERON, FUNDED, PROFESSOR, RAIN, TRADING, TEXAS, CONSENSUS, RESULTS, BIASED, TURBINES, FIGURES FAMILY, QUOTE, UPDATED, KNOWLEDGE, CONSPIRACY DENIER, NATIONAL, VAPOUR, RECENT, ADMIT, DEAL FRAUD, PERSONAL, DEGREE, CAMBRIDGE, WARMEST OFFICE, EXPERT, PREDICTIONS, WATER, LIST, BUILT, GROUP, VESTED, NUMBERS, EXPOSED, FINANCIAL, STATES, BILLS, ANTHROPOGENIC, CONCLUSIONS, DISCREDITED Corpus 2 TAX, MEAT, MILE, PAY, BROWN, ROAD, STERN, TRANSPORT, VEGETARIAN, CAR, CARS, SAVE, LORD EATING, PLANET, ROADS, FUEL, ANIMALS, DRIVE, COWS METHANE, DIET, PEOPLE, LIVE, POLICE, MOTORISTS CONGESTION, MOTORIST, DRIVING, EAT, EMISSIONS PAYING, PETROL, AMERICANS, GOVERNMENT, MILES Figure 1 Concordances of ‘tax’ ‘tax scam’ are almost exclusively politicians or ‘gov- using these words in more detail. This also serves as a ernment’ in general, whereas comments from corpus data reduction strategy, as we can now concentrate on 1 portray scientists as the main ‘perpetrators’. a limited amount of text (reduced from 4698 com- ments to 1907 concordance lines), knowing that it will contain the most salient lexical items out of Collocates of ‘science’ and ‘scientists’: zooming in the whole corpus. In fact, in a separate paper we on specific arguments and their popularity examine these concordance lines and full comments The high keyness value of science and scientists jus- within the framework of social representations theory tifies the creation of a subcorpus to explore comments (Jaspal et al. in press). At the same time, we should be The Geographical Journal Vol. 179 No. 1, pp. 74–86, 2013 © 2012 The Authors. The Geographical Journal © 2012 Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)  Climate change and ‘climategate’ in online reader comments 79 Table 2 Collocates of ‘science’ and ‘scientists’ Search term Collocates (frequency) SCIENCE* not (115), settled (31), agw (29), real (28), understand (24), pseudo (23), review (15), theory (14), bad (13), called (13), man (13), peer (12), consensus (12), data (12), rocket (12), bbc (12), evidence (12), ipcc (11), money (11), reviewed (11), years (10), mean (9), point (9), politics (9) SCIENTIST* not (75), these (60), government (34), agw (30), called (29), work (23), data (21), politicians (21), IPCC (18), real (18), climategate (15), email (15), claim (14), grant (12), majority (11), qualified (11), scientific (11), world (11), Charles (10), funding (10), paid (10), sceptic (10), funding (10) Figure 2 Concordances of ‘science’ aware that this strategy inevitably leaves out some definitional battle of some sort, and an attempt to reader reactions, for example comments on global frame or re-frame existing conceptualisations of what warming in general (e.g. ‘Global warming a myth? just constitutes a problem (it can therefore be examined the same as low fares with Ryanair’). However, the further as an indicator of a ‘diagnostic’ frame, used to analyst still has the means to capture such discourses assess problems rather than solutions; Benford and by running additional concordances for the terms of Snow 2000). interest. By grouping together collocates relating to Following research question 3, the corpus-based SCIENCE and SCIENTISTS (listed separately in technique of collocation lists can bring us closer to the Table 2), it became possible to build up a general discursive means by which particular presentations of picture of how climate science is constructed in science and scientists are constructed in reader com- corpus 1. For example, such collocates as peer ments. As can be seen from Table 2, the adverb ‘not’, review, consensus, evidence and theory alerted us commonly used to express negation, refusal or prohi- to the possibility that readers may be drawing on bition, is the top collocate and was used together with what can be called a pervasive and established rep- ‘science’ and ‘scientist/s’ 115 times and 75 times resentation of science, characterised by rigour, objec- respectively. Although our analysis is focused on tivity, falsification and scepticism (Jaspal et al. in content words rather than grammatical words (pre- press). One of the top collocates of scientists – called positions, adverbs, articles), the consistently high (29) – turned out to be part of a frequent word com- co-occurrence of this adverb with several keywords bination ‘so-called scientists’, the use of which points (see also ‘agw’ in the next section) attracted our atten- to a strategy of dissociating climate scientists from the tion. As Figure 2 shows, the use of ‘not’ signals a ideal norm of science. Other collocates, such as junk, © 2012 The Authors. The Geographical Journal © 2012 Royal Geographical Society The Geographical Journal Vol. 179 No. 1, pp. 74–86, 2013 (with the Institute of British Geographers) 80 Climate change and ‘climategate’ in online reader comments Figure 3 Concordances of ‘scien*’ in the context of ‘not’ pseudo, funding, paid etc. point to a negative presen- the comment under study) enabled an in-depth analy- tation, as something linked to fraud. Further on, such sis of how particular descriptions of social actors are collocates as politics, politicians and government achieved. The WordSmith software (Scott 2011) echo the negative representations of climate change allows sorting the lines in various ways – in alphabeti- mitigation policies as a ‘tax scam’ in corpus 2. cal order, by the word to the right or left of the search The analysis of collocational lists enables a quick term – or running concordances in the context way of establishing frequent lexical patterns that may of a word of interest (e.g. to see how the keyword be indicative of broader themes and arguments. It ‘scientist’ is actually used with the top collocate provides assurance that discursive constructions ‘called’ (Figure 4). The concordances of ‘science’, for emerging from the analysis are repeatedly used in the example, make immediately visible a variety of sample, and in this way helps to address a criticism devices that can be explored further as traces of dif- often voiced against qualitative approaches: ferent discourses and arguments: inverted commas and the use of ‘so-called’ to signal distancing from a The hidden danger is that the reason why the texts con- proposition, the emphatic use of NOT written in capi- cerned are singled out for analysis in the first place is that tals, ‘Science’ with capital S, and with the definite they are not typical, but in fact quite unusual instances article, and so on. which have aroused the analyst’s attention. Concordances can also help us pinpoint the lexi- (Koller and Mautner 2004, 218) calisation of a particular association (in this case, negativity) that may not be picked up through collo- However, to investigate what kind of (climate) science cational lists, or that may be only hinted at by the and scientists these collocational networks are actu- proximity of less frequent lexis. For example, the top ally recruited to construct in our data, we need to turn collocate of ‘science’ and ‘scientist/s’ – the acronym to concordances and closer reading. AGW – appears to be a neutral label given its origin in scientific literature, and its top collocates are not (55), theory (33) and evidence (17). However, the existence Concordances and the full text view: revealing of such collocates as scam (15) and believers (14) discursive strategies together with the word combinations such as agw A systematic study of both standard concordances, crowd, agw camp, agw agenda, agw lobby, agw e.g. Figures 1–4, and extended concordances (which movement, agw mythologists, agw hypocrisy and amount to several lines of text and often reveal most of agw nuts revealed through the study of concordances The Geographical Journal Vol. 179 No. 1, pp. 74–86, 2013 © 2012 The Authors. The Geographical Journal © 2012 Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)  Climate change and ‘climategate’ in online reader comments 81 Figure 4 Concordances of ‘scien*’ in the context of ‘so-called’ shows that in this particular corpus it is used with even ‘proper’ science and ‘agw science’, used syn- predominantly negative associations. At the same onymously with ‘pseudo’- and ‘junk-science’. Here time, extended concordances can help us study how climate science is described as lacking the well- some readers contest and challenge this negative known attributes of scientific enquiry such as replica- evaluation of climate scientists; such instances of con- bility, objectivity or falsifiability and therefore labelled testation are unfortunately infrequent in this collec- as fraud, fiction, pseudo-science, conspiracy, swindle, tion of comments and therefore unidentifiable scam etc. through collocates or keywords (but see example [5] below). [1] This is a very dodgy science and flies in the face of Lexical patterns emerging from collocational lists established scientific practice. They just got swept into and concordances were organised via discourse ana- this ridiculous carbon footprint, global warming, CO2 lytical categories of rhetorical strategies of self and hype. other-presentation (Reisigl and Wodak 2009; Baker et al. 2008), limited in this paper to the categories of [2] Agw science is not only not settled, it is pure fiction. actors’ descriptions and stance. As a detailed dis- course analysis of comments is beyond the scope As we can see from Table 3, another strategy pro- of this paper, in Table 3 we present only a summary of ceeds by mapping dishonesty and greed typically findings. The strategies emerged from a process of associated in tabloid discourse with politics (espe- self-presenting the views of the in-group (in this case, cially politics around carbon credits and carbon tax) people not convinced by science that climate change onto climate science. The following comment is a is occurring or not convinced of attributing the cause good illustration as it combines both strategies: of climate change to human behaviour) by portraying the out-group as inept, corrupt and manipulative (for [3] It is standard practice in every proper science to more detail, see Jaspal et al. in press). Table 3 details release date and methodology in the greatest of detail so how the strategies of actors’ description rely on two that every aspect of the research and of the argument can mechanisms: disassociation of climate scientists from be ‘falsified’ (using the Popper meaning of the word). category ‘science’ through the use of negation and [. . .]. Not to do so puts climate research at the level of definitions of ‘real’ scientists on the one hand, and iridology, homeopoathy, and alchemy. Add political attribution of negative traits to climate scientists agenda, and finding (sic.), and you have a bastardised through associations with politics or fraud/corruption pseudo-science barely worth another look. Unscrupulous (or both) on the other. people making money out of the latest political band- One delegitimisation strategy is to support the main wagon, to justify further taxation by this dreadful tenets of science and then use this to argue that government. current climate science that provides evidence for anthropogenic global warming, or AGW, is not of this In the following example not only ‘normal’ science ideal type. Such a discursive construction of two types or ideal type of (Popperian) science is appropriated by of science allows the commentator to proceed to a far the commentator for an anti-(normal climate) science from neutral contrast and comparison, achieved discourse, but the same goes for ‘sceptical’, that is through statements differentiating between ‘real’ or the ideal type of Mertonian scientific scepticism is © 2012 The Authors. The Geographical Journal © 2012 Royal Geographical Society The Geographical Journal Vol. 179 No. 1, pp. 74–86, 2013 (with the Institute of British Geographers) 82 Climate change and ‘climategate’ in online reader comments Table 3 Strategies of negative other-presentation (adapted from Reisigl and Wodak 2009, 112–113) Strategies Aim Devices Examples from corpus 1 Referential/ Construction of in-groups – membership (not) ‘real scientists’, ‘bona fide nomination and out-groups categorization scientists’, pseudo-scientists, AGW In our data: to disassociate – labelling nuts, AGW scam, the AGW climate scientists from – references to scientific propaganda, etc. category ‘science’ categories (see ‘you don’t have to be AGW believer to collocates) be wary of anecdotal evidence’, ‘global warming is theory, unrepeatable in a lab, yet taken as a scientific fact . . .’ Predication Labeling social actors more – stereotypical, evaluative ‘these money grabbing grant taking or less positively or attribution of negative or scientists’, ‘globalwarming negatively positive traits (see scaremongering scientists and In our data: to attribute concordances) politicians’ negative traits to climate scientists Intensification Modifying the epistemic – intensifying or mitigating ‘Consensus’ IS NOT Science! Never or mitigation status of a proposition the illocutionary force or forget that.’ (discriminatory) . . . are really not scientists utterances . . . do these supposed scientists really think that . . . ‘. . . so-called AGW “experts” ‘ ‘so-called scientists’ appropriated too – by what one normally calls our comparative analysis of keywords has shown, ‘climate sceptics’ to contest (climate) science. associations between science and fraud, and scien- tists and politicians, were present in earlier com- [4] Climate research and IPCC AR4 report is a science ments before ‘climategate’, and were also observed fiction. – Fiction may have sometimes some scientific in other studies of social media (Nerlich and Koteyko base to make the story more realistic. – Science is based 2009). However, the topics and discursive strategies on verifiable facts and sceptical dialogue. employed by tabloid readers in the 2010 corpus indi- cate that the East Anglia controversy might have In this way, two pillars of scientific thinking are seen allowed the commentators to become more assured as lacking in climate science. This is based on the in their assertions about this link; and to speak as if belief that, as purportedly revealed by the hacked they now had proof for their views that the science of email exchanges between climate scientists at the climate change was indeed ‘just a money-making University of East Anglia, scientists expressed con- scam’. In other words, the controversy became a rhe- cerns over frequent Freedom of Information requests, torical stepping stone that allowed those tabloid that is, had doubts about the legitimacy of these readers who are opposed to the idea of man-made requests. This led to allegations that the scientists did global warming to launch more provocatively not want to engage in open scientific debate, did not phrased comments on the issue. want to expose their data to falsification and, in addi- The strategy based on supporting the main tenets of tion, wanted to suppress some data and some critical science appears to be novel in the context of online scientific voices (Pearce 2010). reader comments. It is based on the appropriation of The strategy of creating associations between sci- the arguments typically used by scientists themselves entists and ‘corrupt’ politicians is not surprising in against ‘climate denialism’ and draws on one aspect the context of the Daily Mail and its long history of of the scientific method often referred to as ‘organised exposing political scandals, dating back to the scepticism’, as scientists aim to disprove ideas put eighteenth-century campaign against ‘Old Corrup- forward by fellow researchers (Merton 1942). Instead tion’ (Hollis 1970). Conboy (2008), for example, of merely following the well-trodden track of climate notes that in UK tabloids politicians are represented deniers who frequently invoke uncertainty or certainty almost exclusively as involved in a game of duping (Nerlich 2010; Reisigl and Wodak 2009) as a justifi- the public, while implying that the tabloids them- cation for inaction (the ‘science is not settled’ or the selves are doing their best to rectify the situation. As ‘science is a religion/dogma/tyranny’ arguments), The Geographical Journal Vol. 179 No. 1, pp. 74–86, 2013 © 2012 The Authors. The Geographical Journal © 2012 Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)  Climate change and ‘climategate’ in online reader comments 83 some of the commentators in our corpus took a step Comment ranking: adding another dimension to the further to construct two groups of scientists – the ‘real’ popularity of arguments and ‘proper’ ones and the ‘agw scientists’, and differ- entiate between them to support their positions. This is Analysis of textual content can bring valuable insights why in our data we have a frequent collocation ‘so- into the popular topics and framing strategies; called scientists’, whereas Reisigl and Wodak (2009, however, using only message-level analysis does not 113) commented on the use of the phrase ‘so-called address the dynamics of online contributions. In the global warming’. Such differentiation functions case of reader comments, this means that posts can as a mitigation strategy and merits a more detailed gain prominence in part by attracting positive or nega- discussion. tive ratings as they are automatically moved towards Since 1970, studies in the fields of history and the top of the page. The platform from which our data sociology of science have charted the rise of the epis- were harvested allows rating of published comments temic authority of science, which despite increasing as positive or negative (support or disagreement), a contestations, still holds a prominent hold on public process known as ‘social tagging’ (Gupta et al. 2011). debate (Porter 1995). This is the authority referred to in The comment [3] cited in the preceding section, for those comments that challenge climate-sceptic argu- example, appears at the top of comments positively ments, made either in the news article or in previous ranked in terms of other readers’ votes (it achieved a posts, as in the following example: positive rating of 1235, one of the highest ratings attracted by comments in the corpus). This tendency of favouring posts expressing negative attitudes holds [5] Given the choice of believing a book written by a across the first 50 news articles that attracted com- fruitcake journo like Booker or climate scientists who ments on climate change in 2010 and adds another actually know what they’re talking about, I know which dimension to the popularity of particular arguments in choice to make. And it’s not Booker. texts under study. Although an in-depth study into the mechanisms In this context then, demonstration of scientific behind readers’ actual uses of such ranking is knowledge affords higher credibility to the speaker/ required, this tendency to support negative and pro- writer, which is a popular legitimisation strategy in vocatively phrased comments merits further discus- computer-mediated communication, where one’s sion as it raises questions about the role of such rating. professional or any other status indicators are not First, readers may reply more frequently to the first visible (Galegher et al. 1998; Armstrong et al. 2012). and prominent post, which may affect the topics dis- Conversely, a straightforward denial of scientific cussed. This also may affect the content of posts indi- authority is potentially risky since the speaker/writer rectly as online posters, found to be primarily can be accused of irrationality and subjectivity. It is concerned with issues of self-representation in studies therefore not surprising that in this context of peer- of social media (Papacharissi 2009), will strive to to-peer interaction, users of the above mitigation produce increasingly more provocative or authorita- strategy present themselves not as denouncing tive comments to gain distinction in the crowdedness science per se, only as questioning some flawed of online spaces (Myers 2010). This might be the case ‘subset’ of it, and in doing so, they appear to sub- in our sample as some of the more provocatively scribe to the Mertonian norms of disinterestedness phrased posts and/or posts displaying knowledge of and scepticism (Merton 1942), as in examples [1] ‘real’ science appeared to be among the highest and [4] above. ranked. Second, future research needs to explore and The impartiality and scepticism claimed in the sub- take into account the visibility of particularly high- scription to the norms of scientific debate are only rated comments and how it may affect the popularity superficial however, as commentators do not engage of the comments among the online audience in in the scientific debate by providing proof in the form general (it can attract additional ‘passive readers’ or of data or reasoning; they merely evoke science. Such lurkers who engage with the online content through evocation functions as a disclaimer similar to denial supporting or rejecting specific posts, but can also statements such as ‘I’m not a racist, but . . .’ studied by re-post it on other online platforms) and among news- Van Dijk (1992), which are used to express racist paper editors and journalists (high ratings may be views covertly in order maintain a positive face taken as an indicator of reader preferences). because of strict social norms against discrimination and racism. Following the same line of argument, we Conclusions suggest that scholars of climate-change communica- tion need to be mindful of mitigation strategies like In this article we set out to demonstrate how a corpus- this since there is a risk that the language of climate assisted approach can be employed for an inductive, denial can become more covert, turning into a seem- bottom–up study to uncover the tabloid readers’ dis- ingly more socially acceptable version where anti- courses on climate change, as well as how they scientific bias is carefully mitigated. changed over time and potentially in response to © 2012 The Authors. The Geographical Journal © 2012 Royal Geographical Society The Geographical Journal Vol. 179 No. 1, pp. 74–86, 2013 (with the Institute of British Geographers) 84 Climate change and ‘climategate’ in online reader comments ‘climategate’ – defined by Holliman as ‘a scientific courses may to a certain extent ‘pre-formulate’ beliefs and political news story that explored the validity and that later gain popular currency (Van Dijk 1992, 88). reliability of symbolically significant aspects of If the popularity of such arguments indeed is, or climate science’ (2011, 833). In line with previous becomes, widespread, they can contribute to a corpus-assisted studies of print media discourses process that may make people unsure about what (Baker et al. 2008; Partington 2010), the benefits of science is, how it works and how it contributes to using a corpus-based methodology to analyse online policies around climate-change mitigation. comments lie in detecting emerging patterns via key- At the same time, other rhetorical strategies such words, pinpointing areas that warrant further in-depth as intensification and mitigation, but also defini- investigations (and therefore formulating strategies for tional battles evident in the use of nomination strat- downsampling) via collocational networks, and facili- egies, demonstrate that the climate-sceptic positions tating qualitative contextualised analysis. Below we formulated in the reader comments are not simply a discuss each of these methodological advantages from reproduction of beliefs and opinions expressed in the perspective of a socio-cultural research on climate the tabloid news article. They are also a response to change. the arguments expressed by earlier readers, as well Using keywords, the corpus-assisted approach as an anticipation of replies that can challenge their allowed for the comparison of patterns in readers’ position. Such engagement with previously posted comments during two different time periods, sepa- content is not extensive, especially when compared rated by the controversy that still lingers in the media with blogs or popular discussion fora, and is best spotlight (after the release of a new batch of Climate described within the parameters of agonistic plural- Research Unit emails in 2011, dubbed ‘climategate, ism (Papacharissi 2009) rather than the Habermasian the sequel’, the release of documents from a climate- ideal of democratic deliberation. However, this sceptic think tank, dubbed ‘denialgate’ in early 2012 aspect of online reader comments is valuable for and so on). Analysis of collocations allowed us to what it can reveal about how a climate denial stance reveal repeated expressed meanings showing that is adopted or resisted in peer-to-peer interaction comments from both periods contained pejorative use couched in the ‘language of common sense’ (Tolson of the term ‘scientists’. However, whereas in 2009 the 2001, 26). issues of scientific data and the nature of scientific Earlier studies have documented positive and enquiry were marginalised, in 2010 these topics took negative outcomes of ‘climategate’, such as throwing centre stage. Although perhaps not surprising, these into sharper focus the debate about the role of findings give empirical evidence to support our intui- science in policymaking process, about openness in tion regarding the influence of ‘climategate’ on dis- science, and data sharing (Holliman 2011) on the cussions of science in tabloid reader comments, one hand, and vilification of scientists (see e.g. confirming theoretical speculation by other research- Mann 2012), and erosion of trust in science on the ers about its rhetorical ‘power’ in the digitally medi- other. A less acknowledged outcome, however, is a ated sphere (Holliman 2011). Following Partington’s realisation that to a certain extent ‘climategate’ argument: caught natural and social scientists unprepared – both to the possibility that a politically conservative At the simplest level, corpus technology helps find other movement can represent a serious challenge to the examples of a phenomenon one has already noted. At the dominant institutional logic supporting anthropo- other extreme, it reveals patterns of use previously genic global warming (Hoffman 2011), and to the unthought of. In between, it can reinforce, refute or revise role of social media in galvanising it. Although some a researcher’s intuition and show them why and how emerging sociological analyses have since started to much their suspicions were grounded. examine the ‘top–down’ frames in the print media (2003, 12) and in talk by prominent climate sceptics and deniers (Hoffman 2011; McCright and Dunlap The data visualisation tool of concordances com- 2010), very little attention is still being paid to lay plemented by statistics on comment rating allowed us discourses in general, and Internet-based discourses to investigate how online tabloid readers make their in particular. How are climate-sceptic positions opinions believable and reasonable (Billig 1991), articulated in the variety of social media platforms? paying attention to the content and linguistic charac- What are the discursive elements that sustain or teristics of lay talk as well as to the specific parameters challenge these positions? It is hoped that the of the web-based interactional context. Some of the approach presented in this paper will enable social delegitimisation strategies explored in this article, scientists to address these questions, and analyse not such as association between science and politics, or only the full portfolio of cultural frames and rhetori- emphasis on scientific uncertainty, are typical of cal strategies recruited in climate-sceptic discourses, climate-sceptic logic (Nerlich 2010; Reisigl and but also how they are reproduced or contested in Wodak 2009). Their reproduction in readers’ com- web-based platforms and what underlies their popu- ments indicates that larger political and media dis- larity in this digital landscape. The Geographical Journal Vol. 179 No. 1, pp. 74–86, 2013 © 2012 The Authors. The Geographical Journal © 2012 Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)  Climate change and ‘climategate’ in online reader comments 85 and Gray J eds Designing for virtual communities in the service Acknowledgements of learning Cambridge University Press, New York 338–76 We would like thank the reviewers for their comments Hoffman A 2011 Talking past each other? Cultural framing of on an earlier version of the article. We are grateful skeptical and convinced logics in the climate change debate to the ESRC for their financial support of project Organisation and Environment 24 3–33 RES-360-25-0068, ‘From Greenhouse Effect to Cli- Holliman R 2011 Advocacy in the tail: exploring the implications mategate: A Systematic Study of Climate Change as a of ‘climategate’ for science journalism and public debate in Complex Social Issue’. the digital age Journalism 127 832–46 Hollis P 1970 The pauper press: a study in working-class radi- calism of the 1830 Oxford University Press, London Notes Hulme M 2010 The year climate science was redefined The Guardian 16 November (http://www.guardian. 1 Our second corpus is much smaller in size, whereas for the co.uk/environment/2010/nov/15/year-climate-science-was- purposes of keyword comparison the corpora should ideally redefined) Accessed 12 February 2012 contain a roughly equivalent number of words. However, we Hutchby I 2001 Technologies texts and affordances Sociology 35 could not supplement the data with comments from earlier 441–56 years because no comments were published on the topic up Jaspal R, Nerlich B and Koteyko N in press Contesting science by until late 2008. appealing to its norms: readers discuss climate science in The 2 Keywords were generated using Wordsmith (p value maximum Daily Mail. Science Communication 0.0001, minimum three occurrences). The cut-off value for Killingsworth M and Palmer J 1992 Ecospeak: Rhetoric and keywords was set at 15 (log-likelihood score). Proper names environmental politics Southern Illinois University Press, Car- and terms of address are excluded from Table 1. bondale IL Koller V and Mautner G 2004 Computer applications in critical discourse analysis in Coffin C, Hewings A and O’Halloran K References eds Applying English grammar: corpus and functional Alexander R 2008 Framing discourse on the environment: a approaches Arnold, London 216–28 critical discourse approach Routledge, New York and London Koteyko N 2007 A diachronic approach to meaning in corpus Armstrong N, Koteyko N and Powell J 2012 ‘Oh dear should I linguistics: the use of English loanwords in Russian opposition really be saying that on here?’ Issues of identity and authority discourse Corpora 3 65–95 in an online diabetes community Health 16 347–65 Koteyko N 2010 Mining the Internet for linguistic and social Baker P 2006 Using corpora in discourse analysis Continuum, data: an analysis of ‘carbon compounds’ in web feeds Dis- London course & Society 21 655–74 Baker P, Gabrielatos C, Khosravinik M, Krzyzanowski M, Koteyko N 2012 Managing carbon emissions: a discursive pres- McEnery T and Wodak R 2008 A useful methodological entation of ‘market-driven sustainability’ in the British media synergy? Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus Language and Communication 32 24–35 linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum Lamerichs J and te Molder H 2003 Computer mediated commu- seekers in the UK Press Discourse and Society 19 273–306 nication: from a cognitive to a discursive model New Media & Benford R and Snow D 2000 Framing processes and social Society 54 451–73 movements: an overview and assessment Annual Review of Laslo E, Baram-Tsabari A and Lewenstein B V 2011 A growth Sociology 611–39 medium for the message: online science journalism Bhatia V, Flowerdew J and Jones R eds 2008 Advances in dis- affordances for exploring public discourse of science and course studies Routledge, London ethics Journalism 12 847–70 Billig M 1991 Ideology and opinions: studies in rhetorical psy- Lederbogen U and Trebbe J 2003 Promoting science on the web chology Sage, London Science Communication 24 333–52 Boykoff M 2008 The cultural politics of climate change discourse Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C, Smith N and in UK tabloids Political Geography 27 549–69 Dawson E in press Climategate, public opinion and the loss of Carvalho A 2007 Ideological cultures and media discourses on trust American Behavioral Scientist scientific knowledge, re-reading news on climate change Mann M 2012 The hockey stick and the climate wars: dispatches Public Understanding of Science 16 223–43 from the front lines Columbia University Press, New York Conboy M 2008 Tabloid Britain: constructing a community McCright A and Dunlap R 2010 Anti-reflexivity: the American through language Routledge, Abingdon conservative movement’s success in undermining climate Galegher J, Sproull L and Kiesler S 1998 Legitimacy authority science and policy Theory Culture & Society 272–3 100–33 and community in electronic support groups Written Commu- Merton R K 1942 Science and technology in a democratic order nication 15 493–530 Journal of Legal and Political Sociology 1 115–26 Gupta M, Li R, Yin Z and Han J 2011 Survey on social tagging Moscovici S 1988 Notes towards a description of social techniques in Aggarwal C ed Social network data analytics representations European Journal of Social Psychology 18 Springer, New York 211–50 Herring S 2004 Computer-mediated discourse analysis: an Myers G 2010 Stance-taking and public discussion in blogs approach to researching online behavior in Barab S, Kling R Critical Discourse Studies 7 263–75 © 2012 The Authors. The Geographical Journal © 2012 Royal Geographical Society The Geographical Journal Vol. 179 No. 1, pp. 74–86, 2013 (with the Institute of British Geographers) 86 Climate change and ‘climategate’ in online reader comments Nerlich B and Koteyko N 2009 Compounds, creativity and Potthast M and Becker S 2010 Opinion summarization of web complexity in climate change communication: the case of comments Advances in Information Retrieval 668–9 ‘carbon indulgences’ Global Environmental Change 19 Reisigl M and Wodak R 2001 Discourse and discrimination 345–53 Routledge, London Nerlich B 2010 ‘Climategate’: paradoxical metaphors and politi- Reisigl M and Wodak R 2009 The discourse-historical approach cal parties Environmental Values 19 419–42 in Wodak R and Meyer M eds Methods of critical discourse Papacharissi Z 2009 The virtual sphere 20: the internet the analysis 2nd edn SAGE, London 87–121 public sphere and beyond in Chadwick A and Howard Reser J, Pidgeon N, Spence A, Bradley G A and Glendon I 2011 P eds Handbook of internet politics Routledge, London Public risk perceptions understandings and responses to 230–45 climate change in Australia and Great Britain Interim report Partington A 2003 The linguistics of political argument Richardson J and Stanyer J 2011 Reader opinion in the digital Routledge, London age: tabloid and broadsheet newspaper websites and the exer- Partington A 2010 Modern Diachronic Corpus-Assisted Dis- cise of political voice Journalism 128 983–1003 course Studies (MD-CADS) on UK newspapers: an overview of Scott M 2011 WordSmith Tools version 6 Lexical Analysis Soft- the project Corpora 52 83–108 ware, Liverpool Pearce F 2010 How the ‘climategate’ scandal is bogus and Stubbs M 2001 Words and phrases: corpus studies of lexical based on climate sceptics lies The Guardian 9 February (http:// semantics Blackwell, Oxford www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/climategate- Tolson A 2001 Television talk shows: discourse performance bogus-sceptics-lies) Accessed 1 March 2012 spectacle Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah NJ Porter T 1995 Trust in numbers: the pursuit of objectivity in Van Dijk T 1992 Discourse and the denial of racism Discourse & science and public life Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ Society 31 87–118 The Geographical Journal Vol. 179 No. 1, pp. 74–86, 2013 © 2012 The Authors. The Geographical Journal © 2012 Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)