IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i3p1062-d317907.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

#Climatechange vs. #Globalwarming: Characterizing Two Competing Climate Discourses on Twitter with Semantic Network and Temporal Analyses

Author

Listed:
  • Wen Shi

    (Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Earth System Modeling, Department of Earth System Science, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China)

  • Haohuan Fu

    (Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Earth System Modeling, Department of Earth System Science, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
    National Supercomputing Center in Wuxi, Wuxi 214000, China)

  • Peinan Wang

    (School of Journalism and Communication, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China)

  • Changfeng Chen

    (School of Journalism and Communication, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China)

  • Jie Xiong

    (Strategy and Innovation Department, Rennes School of Business, 35065 Rennes, France)

Abstract

Distinct perceptions of the global climate is one of the factors preventing society from achieving consensus or taking collaborative actions on this issue. The public has not even reached an agreement on the naming of the global concern, showing preference for either “climate change” or “global warming”, and few previous studies have addressed these two competing discourses resulting from distinct climate concerns by differently linking numerous climate concepts. Based on the 6,662,478 tweets containing #climatechange or #globalwarming generated between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2018, we constructed the semantic networks of the two discourses and examined their evolution over the decade. The findings indicate that climate change demonstrated a more scientific perspective and showed an attempt to condense climate discussions rather than diffuse the topic by frequently addressing sub-topics simultaneously. Global warming triggered more political responses and showed a greater connection with phenomena. Temporal analysis suggests that traditional political discussions were gradually fading in both discourses but more recently started to revive in the form of discourse alliance in the climate change discourse. The associations between global warming and weather abnormalitiessuddenly strengthened around 2012. Climate change is becoming more dominant than global warming in public discussions. Although two discourses have shown more similarities in the rank order of important climate concepts, apparent disagreements continue about how these concepts are associated. These findings lay the groundwork for researchers and communicators to narrow the discrepancy between diverse climate perceptions.

Suggested Citation

  • Wen Shi & Haohuan Fu & Peinan Wang & Changfeng Chen & Jie Xiong, 2020. "#Climatechange vs. #Globalwarming: Characterizing Two Competing Climate Discourses on Twitter with Semantic Network and Temporal Analyses," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-22, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:3:p:1062-:d:317907
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/3/1062/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/3/1062/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hanchen Jiang & Maoshan Qiang & Dongcheng Zhang & Qi Wen & Bingqing Xia & Nan An, 2018. "Climate Change Communication in an Online Q&A Community: A Case Study of Quora," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-17, May.
    2. Daniel Read & Ann Bostrom & M. Granger Morgan & Baruch Fischhoff & Tom Smuts, 1994. "What Do People Know About Global Climate Change? 2. Survey Studies of Educated Laypeople," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 971-982, December.
    3. Saffron O’Neill & Hywel T. P. Williams & Tim Kurz & Bouke Wiersma & Maxwell Boykoff, 2015. "Dominant frames in legacy and social media coverage of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(4), pages 380-385, April.
    4. Stephan Lewandowsky & Gilles E. Gignac & Samuel Vaughan, 2013. "The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 3(4), pages 399-404, April.
    5. Lisa Zaval & Elizabeth A. Keenan & Eric J. Johnson & Elke U. Weber, 2014. "How warm days increase belief in global warming," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 4(2), pages 143-147, February.
    6. Ann Bostrom & M. Granger Morgan & Baruch Fischhoff & Daniel Read, 1994. "What Do People Know About Global Climate Change? 1. Mental Models," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 959-970, December.
    7. Guobin Yang, 2016. "Narrative Agency in Hashtag Activism: The Case of #BlackLivesMatter," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(4), pages 13-17.
    8. Haunschild, Robin & Leydesdorff, Loet & Bornmann, Lutz & Hellsten, Iina & Marx, Werner, 2019. "Does the public discuss other topics on climate change than researchers? A comparison of explorative networks based on author keywords and hashtags," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 695-707.
    9. Chengcheng Shao & Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia & Onur Varol & Kai-Cheng Yang & Alessandro Flammini & Filippo Menczer, 2018. "The spread of low-credibility content by social bots," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 9(1), pages 1-9, December.
    10. Wen Shi & Changfeng Chen & Jie Xiong & Haohuan Fu, 2019. "What Framework Promotes Saliency of Climate Change Issues on Online Public Agenda: A Quantitative Study of Online Knowledge Community Quora," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-24, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Grolleau, Gilles & Mzoughi, Naoufel & Peterson, Deborah & Tendero, Marjorie, 2022. "Changing the world with words? Euphemisms in climate change issues," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Antony Millner & Hélène Ollivier, 2016. "Beliefs, Politics, and Environmental Policy," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 226-244.
    2. Rebecca E. Morss & Julie L. Demuth & Ann Bostrom & Jeffrey K. Lazo & Heather Lazrus, 2015. "Flash Flood Risks and Warning Decisions: A Mental Models Study of Forecasters, Public Officials, and Media Broadcasters in Boulder, Colorado," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(11), pages 2009-2028, November.
    3. Angela Bearth & Marie‐Eve Cousin & Michael Siegrist, 2016. "“The Dose Makes the Poison”: Informing Consumers About the Scientific Risk Assessment of Food Additives," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 130-144, January.
    4. Paul M. Kellstedt & Sammy Zahran & Arnold Vedlitz, 2008. "Personal Efficacy, the Information Environment, and Attitudes Toward Global Warming and Climate Change in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 113-126, February.
    5. Matthew D. Wood & Ann Bostrom & Todd Bridges & Igor Linkov, 2012. "Cognitive Mapping Tools: Review and Risk Management Needs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(8), pages 1333-1348, August.
    6. Vedran Lesic & Richard E. Hodgett & Alan Pearman & Amy Peace, 2019. "How to Improve Impact Reporting for Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-21, March.
    7. Ann Bostrom & Adam L. Hayes & Katherine M. Crosman, 2019. "Efficacy, Action, and Support for Reducing Climate Change Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(4), pages 805-828, April.
    8. Matthew Wood & Daniel Kovacs & Ann Bostrom & Todd Bridges & Igor Linkov, 2012. "Flood Risk Management: US Army Corps of Engineers and Layperson Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(8), pages 1349-1368, August.
    9. Kelly Klima & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & M. Granger Morgan & Iris Grossmann, 2012. "Public Perceptions of Hurricane Modification," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(7), pages 1194-1206, July.
    10. Thomas F. Thornton & Diana Mangalagiu & Yuge Ma & Jing Lan & Mahir Yazar & Ali Kerem Saysel & Abdel Maoula Chaar, 2020. "Cultural models of and for urban sustainability: assessing beliefs about Green-Win," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 160(4), pages 521-537, June.
    11. Raya Muttarak & Thanyaporn Chankrajang, 2015. "Who is concerned about and takes action on climate change? Gender and education divides among Thais," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 13(1), pages 193-220.
    12. Peter Taylor‐Gooby & Jens O. Zinn, 2006. "Current Directions in Risk Research: New Developments in Psychology and Sociology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 397-411, April.
    13. Todd S. Bridges & Daniel Kovacs & Matthew D. Wood & Kelsie Baker & Gordon Butte & Sarah Thorne & Igor Linkov, 2013. "Climate change risk management: a Mental Modeling application," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 376-390, September.
    14. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Gabrielle Wong-Parodi & M. Granger Morgan, 2014. "Public perceptions of local flood risk and the role of climate change," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 34(4), pages 591-599, December.
    15. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Lila Rabinovich & Kate Weber & Marianna Babboni & Monica Dean & Lance Ignon, 2021. "Public understanding of climate change terminology," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 167(3), pages 1-21, August.
    16. Katherine M. Crosman & Ann Bostrom & Adam L. Hayes, 2019. "Efficacy Foundations for Risk Communication: How People Think About Reducing the Risks of Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(10), pages 2329-2347, October.
    17. Greco, Marco & Germani, Francesca & Grimaldi, Michele & Radicic, Dragana, 2022. "Policy mix or policy mess? Effects of cross-instrumental policy mix on eco-innovation in German firms," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    18. Klaus Wagner, 2007. "Mental Models of Flash Floods and Landslides," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 671-682, June.
    19. Sarah E. Hampson & Judy A. Andrews & Michael E. Lee & Lyn S. Foster & Russell E. Glasgow & Edward Liechtenstein, 1998. "Lay Understanding of Synergistic Risk: The Case of Radon and Cigarette Smoking," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 343-350, June.
    20. Irene Lorenzoni & Nick F. Pidgeon & Robert E. O'Connor, 2005. "Dangerous Climate Change: The Role for Risk Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(6), pages 1387-1398, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:3:p:1062-:d:317907. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.