Hot weather, hot topic. Polarization and sceptical framing in the climate debate on Twitter
Open accessAbstract
Extreme weather events like the heat wave of 2018 reinforce public attention for climate change. Social media platforms facilitate, define and amplify debate about this topic. They give rise to counterpublic spaces through which counterpublics such as climate sceptics get a stage they would not easily get in mainstream media. Previous research suggests that sceptics use these spaces as safe havens, but also as bases for interventions in the hegemonic debate. Applying a multideterminant frame model, we analyse the Twitter debate among climate change ‘sceptics’ and ‘believers’. We study all tweets in which the heat wave was related to climate change and which were shared by Dutch and Flemish users between 28 July 2018 and 4 August 2018. Laying bare the worldviews underlying the frames of sceptics and non-sceptics, we first demonstrate the diversity of – unilaterally interacting – ideological interests. Building upon this analysis of the scope of the debate and analysing its form, we show that both groups mostly use similar antagonistic strategies to delegitimize and denaturalize their out-groups. We argue that these interventions promote polarization rather than a constructive agonistic debate. As such, this study refutes previous studies that consider sceptic frames as deconstructive and non-sceptic frames as constructive.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Partisan social media users tend to interact across the ideological divide, but this interaction tends to be contentious and conflictual rather than rational deliberation.
“Research on social media data tells a similar story: while partisan social media users do tend to interact across the ideological divide (62), this interaction is not characterized by rational arguments and deliberation but tends to be contentious and conflictual, suggesting that users may not be engaging in good faith attempts at seeing things through other perspectives (98–100).”
From How digital media drive affective polarization through partisan sorting (2022) · cites this paper as [99]
The Conclusion reports that when interactions occurred between climate sceptics and believers on Twitter, they tended to be antagonistic and aimed at delegitimizing the other group rather than fostering constructive debate. This supports the contentious-interaction portion attributed to this source, but the study does not establish that pattern for partisan social media users generally. The separate claim that users interact across the ideological divide is cited to another source (62). (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Reliability in content analysis: some common misconceptions and recommendations.
Krippendorff, K. (2004) · Human Communication Research · doi:10.1093/hcr/30.3.411 · Cited by 1,027 · see citing works
Climate of scepticism: US newspaper coverage of the science of climate change
Antilla, L. (2005) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.08.003 · Cited by 511 · see citing works
Public microblogging on climate change: One year of Twitter worldwide
Kirilenko, A. P., & Stepchenkova, S. O. (2014) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.02.008 · Cited by 254 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 25
- Anderson, A. A., & Huntington, H. E. (2017). Social media, science, and attack discourse: How Twitter discussions of climate change use sarcasm and incivility. Science Communication, 39 (5), 598-620. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017735113 · DOI
- Auger, G. A. (2014). Rhetorical framing: Examining the message structure of nonprofit organiz- ations on Twitter. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 19(4), 239-249. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1499 · DOI
- Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2012). The logic of connective action. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 739-768. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.670661 · DOI · Paper page
- boyd, d., Golder, S., & Lotan, G. (2010). Tweet, tweet, retweet: Conversational aspects of retweeting on Twitter. In 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Book of Proceedings (pp. 1-10). IEEE Computer Society.
- Dahlberg, L. (2001). The Internet and democratic discourse: Exploring the prospects of online deliberative forums extending the public sphere. Information, Communication & Society, 4 (4), 615-633. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180110097030 · DOI
- Entman, R. M. (1991). Framing U.S. coverage of international news: Contrasts in narratives of the KAL and Iran Air incidents. Journal of Communication, 41(4), 6-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1460-2466.1991.tb02328.x · DOI
- Hemphill, L., Culotta, A., & Heston, M. (2013). Framing in social media: How the US Congress uses twitter hashtags to frame political issues. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2317335 · DOI
- Hermida, A. (2017). Twitter, breaking the news, and hybridity in journalism. In B. Franklin & S. A. Eldridge II (Eds.), The Routledge companion to digital journalism studies (pp. 407-416). Routledge.
- Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., & O'Brien, G. (2005). Sustainable development: Mapping different approaches. Sustainable Development, 13(1), 38-52. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.244 · DOI
- IPCC. (2014). Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. Cambridge UP.
- Kaiser, J. (2017). Public spheres of skepticism: Climate skeptics' online comments in the German networked public sphere. International Journal of Communication, 11, 1661-1682.
- Kaiser, J., & Rhomberg, M. (2016). Questioning the doubt: Climate skepticism in German news- paper reporting on COP17. Environmental Communication, 10(5), 556-574. https://doi.org/10. 1080/17524032.2015.1050435 · DOI
- Lo, A. Y. (2014). The right to doubt: Climate-change scepticism and asserted rights to private property. Environmental Politics, 23(4), 549-569. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2014. 884310 · DOI
- Maeseele, P., & Raeijmaekers, D. (2017). Nothing on the news but the establishment blues? Toward a framework of depoliticization and agonistic media pluralism. Journalism. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1464884917739476 · DOI
- Moernaut, R., Mast, J., & Pauwels, L. (2020). Visual and multimodal framing analysis. In L. Pauwels & D. Mannay (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of visual research methods (pp. 484-499).
- Moernaut, R., Mast, J., & Pauwels, L. (2018a). Working mechanically or organically?. Journalism Practice, 12(10), 1311-1331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2017.1387070 · DOI
- Moernaut, R., Mast, J., & Pauwels, L. (2018b). Framing climate change: A multi-level model. In W. L. Filho, E. Manolas, A. M. Azul, U. M. Azeiteiro, & H. McGhie (Eds.), Handbook of climate change communication: Vol 1 (pp. 215-271). Springer.
- Mouffe, C. (2005). On the political. Routledge.
- O'Neill, S. J., Williams, H. T. P., Kurz, T., Wiersma, B., & Boykoff, M. (2015). Dominant frames in legacy and social media coverage of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Nature Climate Change, 5(4), 380-385. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2535 · DOI
- Porter, A. J., & Hellsten, L. (2014). Investigating participatory dynamics through social media using a multideterminant ''frame'' approach: The case of Climategate on YouTube. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(4), 1024-1041. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12065 · DOI
- Takahashi, B., Edwards, G., Roberts, J. T., & Duan, R. (2015). Exploring the use of online platforms for climate change policy and public engagement by NGOs in Latin America. Environmental Communication, 9(2), 228-247. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2014.1001764 · DOI
- Van Gorp, B. (2006). Framing asiel. Indringers en slachtoffers in de pers [Framing asylum. Intruders and victims in the press]. Acco.
- van Zoonen, L., Vis, F., & Mihelj, S. (2011). YouTube interactions between agonism, antagonism and dialogue: Video responses to the anti-Islam film Fitna. New Media and Society, 13(8), 1283- 1300. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444811405020 · DOI
- Williams, H. T. P., McMurray, J. R., Kurz, T., & Lambert, F. H. (2015). Network analysis reveals open forums and echo chambers in social media discussions of climate change. Global Environmental Change, 32, 126-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.006 · DOI · Paper page
- Woods, R., Fernández, A., & Coen, S. (2010). The use of religious metaphors by UK newspapers to describe and denigrate climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 21(3), 323-339. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0963662510385061 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
How digital media drive affective polarization through partisan sorting
Törnberg, P. (2022) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2207159119 · Cited by 288 · see citing works
- Authors
- Moernaut, R., Mast, J., Temmerman, M., & Broersma, M.
- Affiliations
- Vrije Universiteit Brussel (BE)
- University of Groningen (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Mast, Jelle
- Venue
- Information, Communication & Society
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2020-10-29
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1047-1066
- ISSN
- 1369-118X (ISSN-L)
- 1468-4462
- OpenAlex
- W3097394560
- Cited by
- 65
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7
- FWCI
- 9.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- Information Communication & Society (publishedVersion)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Climate Change Communication and Perception
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Keywords
- climate change skepticism, climate change debate, social media polarization, Twitter, counterpublics, frame analysis, ideological interests, delegitimization, denaturalization
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review