IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v133y2015i4p597-605.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The language of denial: text analysis reveals differences in language use between climate change proponents and skeptics

Author

Listed:
  • Srdan Medimorec
  • Gordon Pennycook

Abstract

We used text analyzers to compare the language used in two recently published reports on the physical science of climate change: one authored by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the other by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC; a group of prominent skeptics, typically with prior scientific training, organized by the Heartland Institute). Although both reports represent summaries of empirical research within the same scientific discipline, our language analyses revealed consistent and substantial differences between them. Most notably, the IPCC authors used more cautious (as opposed to certain) language than the NIPCC authors. This finding (among others) indicates that, contrary to that which is commonly claimed by skeptics, IPCC authors were actually more conservative in terms of language style than their NIPCC counterparts. The political controversy over climate change may cause proponents’ language to be conservative (for fear of being attacked) and opponents’ language to be aggressive (to more effectively attack). This has clear implications for the science communication of climate research. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Suggested Citation

  • Srdan Medimorec & Gordon Pennycook, 2015. "The language of denial: text analysis reveals differences in language use between climate change proponents and skeptics," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 133(4), pages 597-605, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:133:y:2015:i:4:p:597-605
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-015-1475-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10584-015-1475-2
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10584-015-1475-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aaron McCright & Riley Dunlap & Chenyang Xiao, 2013. "Perceived scientific agreement and support for government action on climate change in the USA," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 119(2), pages 511-518, July.
    2. Sander L van der Linden & Anthony A Leiserowitz & Geoffrey D Feinberg & Edward W Maibach, 2015. "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change as a Gateway Belief: Experimental Evidence," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(2), pages 1-8, February.
    3. Naomi Oreskes & Erik M. Conway, 2010. "Defeating the merchants of doubt," Nature, Nature, vol. 465(7299), pages 686-687, June.
    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. Ferenc Jankó & Judit Papp Vancsó & Norbert Móricz, 2017. "Is climate change controversy good for science? IPCC and contrarian reports in the light of bibliometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(3), pages 1745-1759, September.
    2. Jeremiah Bohr, 2017. "Is it hot in here or is it just me? Temperature anomalies and political polarization over global warming in the American public," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 142(1), pages 271-285, May.
    3. Faye Holder & Sanober Mirza & Namson-Ngo-Lee & Jake Carbone & Ruth E. McKie, 2023. "Climate obstruction and Facebook advertising: how a sample of climate obstruction organizations use social media to disseminate discourses of delay," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(2), pages 1-21, February.
    4. Hannah Schmid-Petri, 2017. "Politicization of science: how climate change skeptics use experts and scientific evidence in their online communication," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 145(3), pages 523-537, December.
    5. Ferenc Jankó & Áron Drüszler & Borbála Gálos & Norbert Móricz & Judit Papp-Vancsó & Ildikó Pieczka & Rita Pongrácz & Ervin Rasztovits & Zsuzsanna Soósné Dezső & Orsolya Szabó, 2020. "Sources of doubt: actors, forums, and language of climate change skepticism," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2251-2277, September.
    6. Drieschova, Alena, 2021. "The social media revolution and shifts in the climate change discourse," Global Cooperation Research Papers 29, University of Duisburg-Essen, Käte Hamburger Kolleg / Centre for Global Cooperation Research (KHK/GCR21).

    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. Lawrence C. Hamilton, 2016. "Public Awareness of the Scientific Consensus on Climate," SAGE Open, , vol. 6(4), pages 21582440166, November.
    2. Carisa Bergner & Bruce A. Desmarais & John Hird, 2019. "Speaking truth in power: Scientific evidence as motivation for policy activism," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 2(1).
    3. Jessica E. Hughes & James D. Sauer & Aaron Drummond & Laura E. Brumby & Matthew A. Palmer, 2023. "Endorsement of scientific inquiry promotes better evaluation of climate policy evidence," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(6), pages 1-20, June.
    4. Tatyana Deryugina & Olga Shurchkov, 2016. "The Effect of Information Provision on Public Consensus about Climate Change," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-14, April.
    5. Vivianne H. M. Visschers, 2018. "Public Perception of Uncertainties Within Climate Change Science," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 43-55, January.
    6. Bojana Većkalov & Sandra J. Geiger & František Bartoš & Mathew P. White & Bastiaan T. Rutjens & Frenk Harreveld & Federica Stablum & Berkan Akın & Alaa Aldoh & Jinhao Bai & Frida Berglund & Aleša Brat, 2024. "A 27-country test of communicating the scientific consensus on climate change," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 8(10), pages 1892-1905, October.
    7. Oana Georgiana SECUIAN & Anamaria Gabriela VLAD & Mihaela VLAD, 2021. "Smart city a solution for dealing with climate change in European cities," Smart Cities International Conference (SCIC) Proceedings, Smart-EDU Hub, Faculty of Public Administration, National University of Political Studies & Public Administration, vol. 9, pages 285-296, November.
    8. Gordon Gauchat & Timothy O’Brien & Oriol Mirosa, 2017. "The legitimacy of environmental scientists in the public sphere," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 143(3), pages 297-306, August.
    9. David Klenert & Franziska Funke & Linus Mattauch & Brian O’Callaghan, 2020. "Five Lessons from COVID-19 for Advancing Climate Change Mitigation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 76(4), pages 751-778, August.
    10. Kaitlin T Raimi & Paul C Stern & Alexander Maki, 2017. "The Promise and Limitations of Using Analogies to Improve Decision-Relevant Understanding of Climate Change," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-20, January.
    11. Sedona Chinn & P. Sol Hart, 2021. "Effects of consensus messages and political ideology on climate change attitudes: inconsistent findings and the effect of a pretest," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 167(3), pages 1-21, August.
    12. Reynolds, J.P. & Pilling, M. & Marteau, T.M., 2018. "Communicating quantitative evidence of policy effectiveness and support for the policy: Three experimental studies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 218(C), pages 1-12.
    13. Frisch, L.C. & Mathis, J.T. & Kettle, N.P. & Trainor, S.F., 2015. "Gauging perceptions of ocean acidification in Alaska," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 101-110.
    14. Bago, Bence & Rand, David & Pennycook, Gordon, 2021. "Reasoning about climate change," IAST Working Papers 21-126, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    15. Manuel Foerster & Joel (J.J.) van der Weele, 2018. "Denial and Alarmism in Collective Action Problems," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 18-019/I, Tinbergen Institute.
    16. Rosalind Pidcock & Kate Heath & Lydia Messling & Susie Wang & Anna Pirani & Sarah Connors & Adam Corner & Christopher Shaw & Melissa Gomis, 2021. "Evaluating effective public engagement: local stories from a global network of IPCC scientists," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 168(3), pages 1-22, October.
    17. Jason Alexandra, 2021. "Navigating the Anthropocene’s rivers of risk—climatic change and science-policy dilemmas in Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 1-21, March.
    18. Matthew Motta & Daniel Chapman & Dominik Stecula & Kathryn Haglin, 2019. "An experimental examination of measurement disparities in public climate change beliefs," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 37-47, May.
    19. Ruth Breeze, 2021. "Claiming Credibility in Online Comments: Popular Debate Surrounding the COVID-19 Vaccine," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-15, August.
    20. Mantzari, Eleni & Reynolds, James P. & Jebb, Susan A. & Hollands, Gareth J. & Pilling, Mark A. & Marteau, Theresa M., 2022. "Public support for policies to improve population and planetary health: A population-based online experiment assessing impact of communicating evidence of multiple versus single benefits," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 296(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:climat:v:133:y:2015:i:4:p:597-605. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.