Abstract
AbstractIn August 2019, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its Special Report on Climate Change and Land (SRCCL), which generated extensive societal debate and interest in mainstream and social media. Using computational and conceptual text analysis, we examined more than 6,000 English-language posts on Twitter to establish the relative presence of different topics. Then, we assessed their levels of toxicity and sentiment polarity as an indication of contention and controversy. We find first that meat consumption and dietary options became one of the most discussed issues on Twitter in response to the IPCC report, even though it was a relatively minor element of the report; second, this new issue of controversy (meat and diet) had similar, high levels of toxicity to strongly contentious issues in previous IPCC reports (skepticism about climate science and the credibility of the IPCC). We suggest that this is in part a reflection of increasingly polarized narratives about meat and diet found in other areas of public discussion and of a movement away from criticism of climate science towards criticism of climate solutions. Finally, we discuss the possible implications of these findings for the work of the IPCC in anticipating responses to its reports and responding to them effectively.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Atmospheric Science,Global and Planetary Change
Reference76 articles.
1. Amdi S (2020) How people get their news about climate change, in Newman N, Fletcher R, Schulz A, et al. (2020). In: Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2020. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Oxford, UK, pp 52–56
2. Anderson AA, Huntingdon HE (2017) Social media, science and attack discourse: how twitter discussions of climate change use sarcasm and incivility. Sci. Commun. 39(5):598–620
3. Asayama S et al (2019) Why setting a climate deadline is dangerous. Nat. Clim. Change 9(8):570–572. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0543-4
4. Barkemeyer R, Dessai S, Monge-Sanz B et al (2016) Linguistic analysis of IPCC summaries for policymakers and associated coverage. Nat. Clim. Change 6:311–316
5. Benkler Y, Faris R, Roberts H (2018) Network propaganda. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Cited by
33 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献