Transcript O4.6
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. Tuesday, March 21, 2017 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? 3/21/2017 The Institute for Science and Society 2 3/21/2017 3 Views on anthropogenic climate change: lukewarmists contrarians warmists skeptics alarmists denialists catastrophists 3/21/2017 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”. 3/21/2017 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. 3/21/2017 6 3/21/2017 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 3/21/2017 8 3/21/2017 9 Corpus Linguistics: 3/21/2017 10 Corpus Linguistics: 3/21/2017 11 Corpus Linguistics: 3/21/2017 12 Semantic Tagging: 453 sub categories 3/21/2017 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’ 3/21/2017 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) 3/21/2017 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) 3/21/2017 Event Name and Venue 16 Top Semantic categories: 3/21/2017 The Guardian The Daily Mail 17 Top Semantic categories: 3/21/2017 The Guardian The Daily Mail 18 Top Semantic categories: 3/21/2017 The Guardian The Daily Mail 19 Top Semantic categories: 3/21/2017 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]… 3/21/2017 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]… 3/21/2017 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]… 3/21/2017 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]… 3/21/2017 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]… 3/21/2017 25 Key themes in context: the process of ‘cluster tagging’ 3/21/2017 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 3/21/2017 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 3/21/2017 28 3/21/2017 29 3/21/2017 30 3/21/2017 31 3/21/2017 32 3/21/2017 33 3/21/2017 34 3/21/2017 35 3/21/2017 36 3/21/2017 37 3/21/2017 38 3/21/2017 39 3/21/2017 40 Sampling: 3/21/2017 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..” 3/21/2017 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. 3/21/2017 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). 3/21/2017 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). 3/21/2017 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). 3/21/2017 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). 3/21/2017 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). 3/21/2017 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). 3/21/2017 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). 3/21/2017 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). 3/21/2017 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. 3/21/2017 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 3/21/2017 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 3/21/2017 54