Cited by 65Climate Change Communication and PerceptionMisinformation and Its ImpactsSocial Media and Politics

Hot weather, hot topic. Polarization and sceptical framing in the climate debate on Twitter

Open access
Moernaut, Renée, Mast, Jelle, Temmerman, Martina, Broersma, Marcel·2022·Information, Communication & Society

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/1369118x.2020.1834600

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. IPCC. (2014). Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. Cambridge UP.
  11. Kaiser, J. (2017). Public spheres of skepticism: Climate skeptics' online comments in the German networked public sphere. International Journal of Communication, 11, 1661-1682.
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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).
  16. 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
  17. 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.
  18. Mouffe, C. (2005). On the political. Routledge.
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. Van Gorp, B. (2006). Framing asiel. Indringers en slachtoffers in de pers [Framing asylum. Intruders and victims in the press]. Acco.
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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

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
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
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