Sources of doubt: actors, forums, and language of climate change skepticism

Ferenc Jankó (), Áron Drüszler (), Borbála Gálos (), Norbert Móricz (), Judit Papp-Vancsó (), Ildikó Pieczka (), Rita Pongrácz (), Ervin Rasztovits (), Zsuzsanna Soósné Dezső () and Orsolya Szabó ()
Additional contact information
Ferenc Jankó: Eötvös Loránd University
Áron Drüszler: University of Vienna
Borbála Gálos: University of Sopron
Norbert Móricz: Forest Research Institute
Judit Papp-Vancsó: University of Sopron
Ildikó Pieczka: Eötvös Loránd University
Rita Pongrácz: Eötvös Loránd University
Ervin Rasztovits: Forest Research Institute
Zsuzsanna Soósné Dezső: Eötvös Loránd University
Orsolya Szabó: Forest Research Institute

Scientometrics, 2020, vol. 124, issue 3, No 22, 2277 pages

Abstract: Abstract The paper investigates the reference corpus of a climate change contrarian report. We categorized the journal abstracts according to the endorsement positions on anthropogenic climate change. These results were contrasted by an in-text citation analysis. We focused here on the role of the papers included by the report editors concerning the mainstream claims around climate change. Our results showed moderate differences in the endorsement rates as well as in the sources of contrarian arguments considering the contrarian report in general and the presented journals specifically. These outcomes indicate differences among the journals regarding editorial practice, topic-dependency, and the home field advantage of some authors. Beyond the bibliometric data, our additional rhetorical analysis showed that language and wording are at least as important as the references backing the claims. The well-founded atmosphere of doubt in the climate skeptic report relies on two prevalent factors working together: relevant information accumulated on methodological uncertainties and findings that do not support mainstream knowledge claims (1); and solemn rhetoric supplemented with proper re-contextualization and reinterpretation (2).

Keywords: Climate change skepticism; Consensus research; Peer reviewed journals; Scientific rhetoric (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-020-03552-z Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:scient:v:124:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03552-z

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/11192

DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03552-z

Access Statistics for this article

Scientometrics is currently edited by Wolfgang Glänzel

More articles in Scientometrics from Springer, Akadémiai Kiadó
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().