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.
Friday, July 1, 2016
The Institute for Science and Society
1
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?
7/1/2016
The Institute for Science and Society
2
7/1/2016
3
Views on anthropogenic climate change:
lukewarmists
contrarians
warmists
skeptics
alarmists
denialists
catastrophists
7/1/2016
4
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”.
7/1/2016
5
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.
7/1/2016
6
7/1/2016
7
‘Climate change’ articles from The Guardian:
Title
Author
That snow outside is what global warming looks like
George Monbiot 20/12/2010
1679
George Monbiot 07/12/2009
1422
George Monbiot 23/11/2009
1296
George Monbiot 08/03/2010
1202
George Monbiot 02/01/2012
1146
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/20/uk-snow-global-warming?INTCMP=SRCH
The climate denial industry is out to dupe the public. And it's
working
Date
Comments
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/dec/07/climate-change-denialindustry?INTCMP=SRCH
Global warming rigged? Here's the email I'd need to see
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/23/global-warming-leaked-emailclimate-scientists?INTCMP=SRCH
The trouble with trusting complex science
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/mar/08/belief-in-climate-changescience?INTCMP=SRCH
That sleighbell winter? It's all part of climate change denial
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/02/sleighbell-winter-climate-changedenial?INTCMP=SRCH
7/1/2016
8
7/1/2016
9
Corpus Linguistics:
7/1/2016
10
Corpus Linguistics:
7/1/2016
11
Corpus Linguistics:
7/1/2016
12
Semantic Tagging:
453 sub categories
7/1/2016
13
Semantic Tagging:
‘excited’
X Psychological states and processes
 X5 Attention
 X5.2 Excited/Energetic
 X5.2+ ‘excited’
‘jump_on_the_bandwagon’
S Social actions, states and processes
X5.2- ‘apathetic’

S1.1.3 Participation
 S1.1.3+ ‘jump_on_the_bandwagon’
S1.1.3- ‘bunk_off’
7/1/2016
14
Grammatical Tag (CLAWS)
PPIS1 1st person sing. subjective personal pronoun (I)
VV0 base form of lexical verb (e.g. give, work)
AT1 singular article (e.g. a, an, every)
JJ General adjective
NN1 singular common noun (e.g. book, girl)
IO of (as preposition)
NN1 singular common noun (e.g. book, girl)
7/1/2016
Semantic Tag (USAS)
I
like
a
particular
shade
of
lipstick
Z8 Pronouns
E2+ Like
Z5 Grammatical Bin
A4.2+ Detailed
O4.3 Colour and Colour Patterns
Z5 Grammatical Bin
B4 Cleaning and Personal Care
15
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)
7/1/2016
Event Name and Venue
16
Top Semantic categories:
7/1/2016
The Guardian The Daily Mail
17
Top Semantic categories:
7/1/2016
The Guardian The Daily Mail
18
Top Semantic categories:
7/1/2016
The Guardian The Daily Mail
19
Top Semantic categories:
7/1/2016
The Guardian The Daily Mail
20
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]…
7/1/2016
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]…
7/1/2016
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]…
7/1/2016
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]…
7/1/2016
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]…
7/1/2016
25
Key themes in context: the process of ‘cluster tagging’
7/1/2016
26
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
7/1/2016
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
7/1/2016
28
7/1/2016
29
7/1/2016
30
7/1/2016
31
7/1/2016
32
7/1/2016
33
7/1/2016
34
7/1/2016
35
7/1/2016
36
7/1/2016
37
7/1/2016
38
7/1/2016
39
7/1/2016
40
Sampling:
7/1/2016
Original discussion thread:
Comments
1679
Words
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%)
41
‘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..”
7/1/2016
42
‘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.
7/1/2016
43
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).
7/1/2016
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).
7/1/2016
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).
7/1/2016
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).
7/1/2016
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).
7/1/2016
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).
7/1/2016
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).
7/1/2016
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).
7/1/2016
51
Comments
References
andyjr75
32
24
9.59
Bluecloud
61
22
61
13.22
gourdonboy
28
19
HypatiaLee
57
16.62
JBowers
99
15
georgecoldwell
39
18.94
georgecoldwell
39
15
truthisforever
34
20.96
macsporan
22
15
andyjr75
32
22.87
HypatiaLee
57
15
porgythecat
29
24.60
derekbloom
7
14
gourdonboy
28
26.27
Simongah
8
12
turningtide
27
27.87
euangray
18
8
User
Comments
Aggregate %
JBowers
99
5.90
ElliottCB
62
Bluecloud
User
Of 558 different contributors 363 (65%) only commented once.
7/1/2016
52
Summary:
 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
7/1/2016
53
Summary:
 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
7/1/2016
54