Frames of climate change skepticism A comparative framing analysis of climate change skeptics in Sweden and the world.

By: Laura Linnala Supervisor: Michael Gilek Södertörn University | School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies Master’s dissertation 30 credits Environmental Science | Spring semester 2019 Programme Environment, Communication and Politics

Preface

This thesis was written in the spring of 2019, at a time of global climate activism and climate strikes for the future, spurred by visionary young people with the aim to enable a future for them and generations after. This visionary devotion to stop a climate crisis is unfolding in the same time high political contention, where climate change skepticism increases. It is my wish that this thesis may hopefully be a small contribution towards a better tomorrow. Thank you to Martin Hultman and Kjell Vowles at Chalmers Technical University for providing guidance. The researcher has been supervised by prof. Michael Gilek who deserves a special thanks. Thank you for hours of guidance and therapeutic work, your support has been a great help. To Fredrik – thank you for your support and perseverance. Your love and devotion got me here. Södertörn University May 2019

Abstract

Frames of climate change skepticism – a comparative framing analysis of climate change

skeptics in Sweden and the world

Author: Laura Linnala

We live in a time of changing climate and global warming, creating an urgency for policy-

and societal ameliorative action. Increasing climate change skepticism in the Anglo-Saxon

parts of the world as well as in Europe risks delaying urgent actions needed. This thesis

studies a climate skeptical blog site and network in Sweden, Klimatupplysningen, and

analyzes strategies used. A comparative framing analysis is conducted where frames compiled

from previous research is searched for and analyzed in a randomly selected material of 150

blog posts.

The results from the research show that strategies and frames from previous research to a

large extent match those in Klimatupplysningen. Two new frames appeared from the material;

Media & Debate and Humor. The new frames are indicative of a contextuality of online social

media as main platform for communication and networking. More research is needed on

effects on audiences from blogs and other social media.

Key words: climate change skepticism, Klimatupplysningen, blog, comparative framing

analysis, rhetorics.

Table of contents

1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. FRAMING ................................................................................................................................................. 2 1.2. RHETORICS AS A FRAMING TOOL ................................................................................................................... 3

2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUNDS OF CLIMATE CHANGE SKEPTICISM .......................................................... 5 2.1. AN EMERGING PROBLEM ............................................................................................................................. 5

2.1.1. Swedish skepticism .......................................................................................................................... 6 2.2. CATEGORIES OF SKEPTICISM ......................................................................................................................... 7 2.3. SKEPTICISM – A LONGING FOR (INDUSTRIAL) STATUS QUO .................................................................................. 8

3. RESEARCH PROBLEM, AIM AND QUESTIONS ........................................................................................ 10 3.1. RESEARCH QUESTIONS .............................................................................................................................. 11

4. METHOD AND ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................ 12 4.1. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ....................................................................................................................... 13 4.2. RHETORICAL FRAMING .............................................................................................................................. 13 4.3. COMPARATIVE CONTENT ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................. 13 4.4. EMPIRICAL MATERIAL ............................................................................................................................... 14 4.5. OVERARCHING ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK ..................................................................................................... 15 4.6. FRAMES IDENTIFIED IN PREVIOUS RESEARCH .................................................................................................. 17

5. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................... 19 5.1. ORGANIZATION OF KLIMATUPPLYSNINGEN .................................................................................................... 19 5.2. IDENTIFIED FRAMES AND COMPARISON ........................................................................................................ 22 5.3. STRATEGIES IN COMMUNICATION ................................................................................................................ 30

6. DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................................................... 31 6.1. ORGANIZATION OF KU ............................................................................................................................. 31 6.2. FRAMES USED AND UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS ............................................................................................. 32 6.3. REFLECTIONS ON STRATEGIES USED ............................................................................................................. 33

7. CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 35 8. FUTURE RESEARCH ............................................................................................................................... 36 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................. 37 APPENDIX A .................................................................................................................................................. 45 APPENDIX B .................................................................................................................................................. 48

1

1. Introduction

One of the most critical issues of our time is increasing global warming and climate change.

The effects of climate change are expected to cause severe, irreversible impacts on human

societies and ecosystems (IPCC AR5, 2014). The scientific understanding of the greenhouse

gas effect was experimentally proven by John Tyndall as early as 1859. The Swedish chemist

Svante Arrhenius made the connection between burning of fossil fuels (today referred to as

anthropogenic activities) and increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere causing a

warming of the planet in 1896 (Arrhenius, 1896). There is a 97-98 % consensus amongst

climate scientists that climate change is ongoing and that it has most likely been sped up by

anthropogenic causes (IPCC AR5; Nasa; Oreskes, 2004; Oreskes & Conway, 2012). The

warming of the planet that the IPCC has noted since the 1950’s is unprecedented from

previous millennia (AR 5 SYR SPM). The greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere

has increased due to human activities and this is according to IPCC judged the be extremely

likely to be the main cause for the observed warming of the planet (ibid).

Despite this scientific consensus, there are individuals, groups and administrations doubting

the scientific evidence and consensus. These are commonly referred to as climate change

skeptics1. Common points of doubt are that climate change is happening and global warming

is ongoing, that human activities are causing it and that that the scientific evidence is robust

enough. Use of the term skeptics is chosen on the basis of what Poortinga et al. (2011)

describe as a “group that strongly rejects the findings of mainstream climate science”, unlike

ambivalence which entails contradictory feelings or uncertainty that refers to less strongly

held beliefs or feelings of doubt to whether climate is changing or human activity is causing

it. Van Rensburg & Head (2017) argues that skepticism goes beyond doubting the scientific

evidence to a “drive to confirm a preferred worldview”, a definition shared by the researcher.

This thesis will thoroughly study the Swedish climate skeptic network Klimatupplysningen

(The Climate Enlightenment). It will address how they are organized, what frames and

strategies are used in their communication, and if there are differences in framing and

1 A clarification is required; within the framework of this study, and to emphasize objectivity on the subject, the researcher chooses not to use descriptive concepts such as deniers or contrarians (Poortinga et al., 2011) of the group studied in this thesis. It is the belief of the researcher that alternative designations such as deniers, contrarians etc. are indicative of a positioning that is not appropriate in this study.

2

strategies to those of other climate skeptic groupings. Beyond providing an empirical account

and analysis of a previously unstudied climate skeptic organization in Sweden, the findings

may be useful for science communicators, policy makers and the broad public to understand

skeptical framings of facts in Sweden and beyond.

The following chapters will introduce the concept of framing and rhetorics briefly.

1.1. Framing

Framing is the selecting of some parts and accentuating them, while choosing not to do so for

other parts of reality in communication (Entman, 1993:52). Every word in our language is

situated within a frame that contains associations, images and information. To use the well-

known example given by George Lakoff (2004), think of the word ‘elephant’. To most of us,

this elicits imagery of an elephant; a large grey being with floppy ears and a long trunk,

potentially even hearing the sound it makes. It may also invoke a context around the being in

place and time. This example displays some of the information that a frame contains and

makes clear all the information we process by interpreting language. Framing, therefore,

decides how an audience ought to think of an issue, and may lead to framing effects, i.e.

influences how we respond to problems, at both the individual level and the community level.

Rather than persuading, framing of information offers specific interpretations and thus

impacts readers’ understanding of a problem (whether they agree or not) (Nelson et al. 1997).

In terms of climate change skepticism, framing is an important issue to analyze in order to

understand what underlying world views are present and what references are being made by

the skeptics.

Framing takes place in, or via at least four particular instances or actors; the communicator,

receiver, the text and the culture (Entman, 1993). The communicators present their beliefs in

what they choose to communicate, the receiver contributes to framing through their

interpretative frame, the text contains frames manifested by images, key phrases, sources and

sentences that combined creates a cluster we can call frame and lastly, the culture is a place of

framing in the sense that certain discourses are present in different cultures, constituting what

we collectively agree or disagree on (Entman, 1993). This way, the sender of information

chooses how to define a problem and what solution there might be, and the wider collective of

actors making up a society collectively decide what is up for discussion. Framing theory

3

offers useful tools to the researcher to strip down a text and analyze the information that

subconsciously is being applied to a reader’s interpretation of texts (Entman, 1993).

Framing as a field of media effects research dates back to research in sociology and

psychology (Pan & Kosicki, 1993). Sociologists including Goffman, Gitlin and Gamson used

the concept of framing starting in the 1970’s. During the same time, researchers in the

psychological field such as Minsky, Kahneman & Tversky and Iyengar studied different uses

and effects of framing (Pan & Kosicki, 1993). Framing was widely used in a quantitative way,

i.e. counting occurrence of wordings and drawing conclusions based on this. D´Angelo and

Kuypers (2010) further expanded the research field by applying a rhetorical lens to framing,

thus allowing for qualitative studies using the researcher as main tool for interpretation of a

text. This has been an essential source of inspiration for the theoretical choice of approach of

this thesis.

Framing has also been used in research on climate change. Some examples of areas

previously studied are public attitude on climate change (Corner et al., 2012; Broadbent et al.,

2016; Ramney & Clark, 2016), news reporting of climate change (Lockwood, 2011; Dirikx &

Gelders, 2010; Feldman et al., 2011; Shehata & Hopmann, 2012; Valkenburg & Semetko,

2000; Scholte et al., 2012, Trumbo, 1996), use of frames in visual imagery in print news

(Rebich-Hespanha et al. 2014), policy preferences (Hart, 2011; Hart & Nisbet, 2012),

influence of domestic political elites on news coverage of climate change (Shehata &

Hopmann, 2012) and the importance of the role of the sender (Carvalho, 2007; Boykoff &

Olson, 2013) to name a few.

1.2. Rhetorics as a framing tool

To ensure an appropriate societal response to the scientifically established urgency of climate

change and global warming, there is a need for increased public understanding of the

environmental problems we are experiencing. This highlights the need of comprehensive

information about the causes, effects and solutions to climate change – a critical assignment

for environmental science communicators. An important tool for any communicator to come

across with a message is rhetoric.

4

This 2500-year-old art of speaking and writing has been studied and used in many disciplines.

It has been defined concisely by D’Angelo & Kuypers as “the strategic use of

communication, oral or written, to achieve specifiable goals” (D’Angelo & Kuypers,

2010:288). As the definition implies, it is a strategic act of persuasion, aiming to convince an

audience to agree (ibid). Although not necessarily planned or intentional, rhetorics is used in

everyday life in all communication. Rhetorics is also described as an argumentative force to

engage in dialogue. It refers to placing arguments against one another in order to find

solutions and answers to open questions in order to gain support against objections to decide

on which answer is best (Hellspong, 2013). The dialogue can be held as a monologue (i.e.

only one party is expressing opinion) but is in that case directed towards someone else

holding a differing opinion.

Argumentation is present in all parts of our opinion making. For example, we engage in

argumentation when we aim to affect someone’s opinion, when we resolve conflicts, when we

take a stance, when we think, seek for knowledge and when we act. We do it when we aim to

persuade, deliberate, confront, motivate and interact in matters of fact, values and action. All

of these reasons are viable in the case of Klimatupplysningen. It is useful to understand the

role of argumentation when analyzing posts from Klimatupplysningen. This blog site meets

the description of a “filter” blog, i.e. a blog conveying facts and emotions dressed in own

interpretations (Wei, 2009).

Rhetorics is based on an abundance of rhetorical devices. Aristotle divided them into three

categories; logos (logical claims, testimony, comparisons, use of statistics), pathos (arguments

appealing to emotions) and ethos (arguments creating authority, instituting trust) (Crowley &

Hawhee, 2004). The art of rhetorics can be studied at length, however, for this thesis the role

of rhetorics will be to supplement the framing analysis drawing on research conducted by

Kuypers (2009). Jim A. Kuypers’ combination of framing analysis with rhetoric opened up a

new path of framing analysis. Kuypers (2009) approach to rhetorical framing analysis begins

with searching for themes in the text. Themes can for this purpose be regarded as topics

identified in the text (e.g. “economy”) and frames are the way a topic is interpreted, or how

the problem/issue of the topic is defined (e.g. climate change mitigation negative to

economy). This has been an important inspiration for the analytical framework presented in

section 4 and subsequently used to analyze empirical findings on Klimatupplysningen.

5

Next, a summary of the previous research of climate change skepticism conducted will

follow.

2. Theoretical backgrounds of climate change skepticism

Climate change skepticism has thus far been thoroughly researched in primarily America,

where the phenomena is most common (Weber & Stern, 2011). Research has also been

conducted on skepticism in, for instance, Australia and Britain (Jacques et al, 2008; Brulle

2014; McCright and Dunlap 2000, 2010; Van Rensburg & Head, 2017). A clear

predominance of research has thus been conducted on Anglo-Saxon countries.

2.1. An emerging problem

Despite the abundance of research available pointing at the evidence of ongoing climate

change and global warming, as well as the anthropological causes of them, the scientific

consensus on climate change and its anthropogenic sources is being questioned by different

groups of climate change skeptics.

Previous studies suggest that climate change skepticism is growing internationally (Poortinga

et al., 2011; Weber & Stern, 2011; Oreskes & Conway, 2012). While less studied than in the

U.S., there are also signs that climate change skepticism is increasing in Sweden (KTH, 2017;

Rosenthal, 2018) as well as in the rest of Europe (Eurobarometer, 2017). According to the

Special Eurobarometer on climate change conducted in March 2017, climate change has

gradually declined as the most seriously perceived problem facing the world since 2011

(Special Eurobarometer 459). In 2011, 20 % of the respondents perceived climate change to

be the most serious problem, 16 % in 2013, 15 % in 2015 and only 12 % in 2017. Other

outside threats such as terrorism has increased in the respondent’s perceptions to be most

serious problem (ibid). Of the Swedish respondents, 38 % found climate change to be the

single most serious problem (ibid).

Initially, it may be a simple line of reasoning to assume that skeptics only preach to their own

choirs, not having effect on audiences outside their groups. This, however, has been dismissed

by researchers studying how public beliefs are affected by a perceived scientific uncertainty

(McCright et al., 2013; Aklin & Urpelainen, 2014), concluding that disagreements in the

scientific field leads to lower public acceptance of policy. Aklin & Urpelainen studied the

6

effect uncertainty has on audiences as well as what the actual messages are that they are

disseminating. In their study (2014) they analyzed how an audience reacts to and interprets

facts when knowing that the scientific community behind the facts are having small

(insignificant) disagreements. The results showed that the audience to a higher degree

doubted the facts and any policy making surrounding the facts. This indicates that the general

public expects unrealistically high levels of agreement in science. This highlights the

relevance in studying online forums that often appeal to a wider general public. It is also

important to note that news consumption online has increased rapidly, having effect on

understanding of facts and conclusions due to the absence of journalistic norms or a general

demand for unbiased and factual information.

A study by McCright et al. (2016) analyzed the effect of a denial frame on a readers’

interpretation of action on climate change (ACC). The study showed that a reader faced with

information on ACC alone is not significantly affected by the message. However, when

facing information about ACC and receiving information about (marginal) scientific

uncertainty, the reader was greatly affected and to a higher extent prone to disbelieve actions

are needed or have any effect. This does not at all reflect the scientific side of climate change

action, where 97 – 98 % of scientists in the relevant field(s) recommend policy action. This

proves how effective doubt can be on public response to an urgent issue and the importance of

what frames are executed in how we interpret information.

2.1.1. Swedish skepticism

While most of the research on climate change skepticism is focused on Anglo-Saxon regions,

less is known about the situation in Sweden. However, an article by Anshelm & Hultman

(2014) draws up a map of the state of climate skepticism in Sweden. In this publication

Sweden is described as, since 1990, a country of “ecomodern consensus”, i.e. a general

acceptance of climate change and global warming on both parliamentary and societal levels.

The skeptics, however, do not agree. These skeptics is a small, but potentially influential,

group with connections to business, scientific and technology research associations. Swedish

think tanks such as Edoxa, Captus and Timbro have expressed doubt of anthropogenic global

warming. Anshelm & Hultman (2015) showed connections between the Stockholm Initiative

being established and climate skeptic reporting in the largest newspapers in Sweden. This

allows the conclusion that this network has access to influence Swedish media reporting.

Internationally, the news reporting on climate change is distorted due to journalistic norms of

7

balancing (Boykoff & Boykoff, 2007). These journalistic norms require several perspectives

to be presented in a news story in a balanced manner, often interpreted as a 50/50 divide of

the news space between contending parties, which does not correspond to the state of the

scientific consenssus.

The research on climate change skepticism in Sweden is still in need of further research.

Apart from a deeper understanding of skepticism, the impact of use of different types of

media is still to be understood. Online based communication platforms, such as blogging

platforms, as news conveyors is an important area of study in times of increasing use of

internet as primary source of news.

2.2. Categories of skepticism

Previous research has categorized climate change skeptics into specific categories, themes or

shared attributes.

Stefan Rahmstorf (2004) designed a categorization of climate change skeptics that is widely

cited. He divides the skeptics into three distinct categories; trend-, impact- and attribution

skeptics. Trend skeptics question that climate change is taking place at all and argue that the

measured warming is caused by inaccuracies in the measuring instruments (ibid). The

attribution skeptics accept the measured trends, but question that human activity is causing it

(ibid). They often explain the warming of the planet by natural activities such as solar

activity. The impact skeptics neither deny the warming nor the human causes but see the

impacts of global warming as positive for humans.

Another categorization has been provided by researchers at Chalmers Technical University,

where the first international research network has been established to conduct research on

climate change skepticism (Chalmers, 2018). They categorize skepticism (they use the word

denial) in four categories based on previous research; party political, organized denial,

response denial and everyday denial2.

Capstick & Pidgeon (2014) argue for a two-piece categorization of skeptics; epistemic

skepticism and response skepticism. The epistemic skepticism refers to those skeptical about

2 The term denial is used in quotation of the study and not as a term used by the researcher.

8

the scientific parts of climate change such as the fact it is even ongoing, the evidence behind

it, the consensus and the scientists involved in the research. The response skepticism refers to

a skepticism of the efficacy of policy responses, lack of engagement and feelings of

helplessness.

These categorizations, though not exhaustive of all the proposed categorizations available in

the research field, are useful in understanding the nuances in climate change skepticism. For a

deeper understanding, the following section will present a more detailed account of

characteristics of climate skepticisms.

2.3. Skepticism – a longing for (industrial) status quo

Previous research has devoted great efforts to identifying common characteristics in climate

change skeptics in order to answer questions of what drivers there might be (socio-political,

personal, cultural etc.).

The most common explanatory factors are that older, conservative, white males are more

likely to be skeptic (McCright & Dunlap, 2010; McCright & Dunlap, 2011; Jacques, 2006;

Anshelm & Hultman, 2014; Poortinga, 2011; Whitmarsh, 2011). This has been explained as

“the white male effect” and is described by McCright & Dunlap (2011), which is the tendency

of white males to be more accepting of risks than others, on account of them rarely suffering

the consequences of risks taken. Considering the powerful positions in Western societies

often held by men, and the societal structures upheld by them, it may not be surprising that

this group is risk taking. However, this also underlines ideas of protecting identity and

lifestyle.

Furthermore, Piltz (2008) entitled the organized skepticism “the denial machine”, which

produces skepticism using lobbying and political opinion making often conducted by

conservative think tanks, business and religious organizations by means of the media.

Reasons for such organizing of effort to forward climate skeptical arguments has been

explained by the fact that these people generally have vested interests in the structures that

current status quo contains, that the environmentalists are in fact questioning (McCright &

Dunlap, 2011). McCright & Dunlap (2011) also showed that males that estimated their own

level of knowledge on climate change as high also tended to be more skeptical, thus

9

indicating that climate change skepticism is correlated to ‘identity-protecting cognition’.

Jacques et al. (2008) argued that the reason that white males often are skeptical is that they

protect the affluent positions they hold due to industrial development.

Jacques (2006) concluded in his analysis that climate change skepticism is essentially a

defending of political values, a strive to protect the dominant social paradigm. This makes

climate change skepticism inherently conservative and elitist in its protection of current

market economic structures (Jacques, 2006). A significant correlation to conservative political

values has also been shown by McCright & Dunlap (2010). Similarly, an individualist

worldview has been demonstrated to have a clear correlation to a climate change skeptical

perspective, confirming that a liberal, anti-government action attitude affects the belief and

trust in climate science (Van Rensburg & Head, 2017).

Anshelm and Hultman (2014) widened the analysis by using gender analysis, where new

aspects emerged that further clarified the image of climate skeptical actors. The article

identifies the self-image that these actors hold as seeing themselves as vulnerable, oppressed

and silenced in an “inadmissible climate discourse” which is governed by a, perceived,

religious belief in climate change. Their analysis repositioned the image of climate skeptics

from anti-science to a clearer picture of a group protecting the image of masculinity, emotions

and identities.

Broomell et al. (2015) showed in a survey with over 11 000 respondents how worldview,

personal experience, self-efficacy (judgment of own performance) and belief in the market

was correlated to personal intentions to act on climate change. Their study showed that self-

efficacy, pro-environmental attitude and personal experience with global warming were

strong predictors of action on climate change. This supports a hypothesis that conviction of a

need for mitigating action on climate change is related to psychological processes rather than

to individual capacities to make and engage climate-friendly behaviors and activities.

Björnberg et al. (2017) analyzed 161 scientific articles covering climate change skepticism

published over the course of 25 years. They found that climate change skepticism is explained

by multiple factors; psychological, sociological, values based and based on types of

organization. Psychological factors involved are cognitive dissonance caused by our reaction

of instant self-defense when confronted by complex, abstract problems that requires changes

10

in lifestyle. Sociological factors identified were amongst others comfort, trust and social cues

and risks. The values-driven skepticism involves factors such as worldviews that are

individualistic or anthropocentric (as opposed to ecocentric), conservative, neoliberalism,

high trust in capitalism (and defense of individual property rights) as well as religious beliefs.

In simplified terms, the articles in their analysis could be divided into an organized group of

skeptics and lay skeptics.

The following chapter will present the research problem that motivates this study and the

research questions guiding it.

3. Research problem, aim and questions

There is an apparent lack of research on the state, types, organization and impact of climate

change skepticism in a Swedish context. Although the foundations of the research area have

been laid in Sweden, important pieces are still missing to gain insight into how a potentially

influential climate skeptic group communicates, what the impact may be and linking to

corresponding groups internationally.

Combining framing theory and rhetorics brings to light the importance of the sender of

information. The role of the blogger (as analyzed in this study) is to interpret scientific or

political information and convey a version of it on their platform, connecting and translating

complex information into everyday lives (Boykoff, 2011). Studying an online blogging

platform is especially relevant as people are increasingly consuming news on mass media

platforms. Gunter et al. (2009) concluded that blogs as news source are increasingly

influential in setting news agendas. More people are turning to the Internet for information on

a range of topics, across generations as a so-called “google generation” of younger people

knowing only a time of abundant information available online has emerged (Gunter &

Rowlands, 2009).

This thesis aims to understand contemporary Swedish climate skepticism, what strategies are

used, and the perspectives mirrored in their blog posts. This is anchored in their perception of

climate challenges and potential solutions, which is the interest if the study. Using framing

and rhetorics as analytical tools, these perceptions can be revealed from the selected material

and discussed in relation to domestic/political and temporal context.

11

The researcher will compare the frames identified in blog postings on Klimatupplysningen

with those identified in previous research (McCright & Dunlap, 2000; Valkenburg &

Semetko, 2000; Nisbet, 2009; van Rensburg & Head, 2017; Broadbent et al., 2016; Diethelm

& McKee, 2009), in order to identify which frames are prevailing in a Swedish context. Apart

from providing an in-depth empirical account of a potentially influential group of climate

change skeptics in Sweden, this will reveal whether there is a contextuality to skepticism or if

they follow the same type of communication strategies across the world.

The primary contribution of this thesis to the emerging literature on climate skepticism is to

add to the existing knowledge on climate change skepticism the Swedish context, which yet

has not been thoroughly researched. The context of a blog platform adds further relevance to

this specific network as social media is a democratic platform open for the public to join and

find information and network with like-minded (Priest, 2016). This creates a new mode of

communication, one in which socioeconomical hierarchy is not as prevalent, where

information can reach an audience at any time and place but above all, a communication form

where journalistic norms of balance and objectivity may be disregarded (Boykoff, 2011).

It is important to note that the purpose of this study is not to discourage skeptics or to infringe

on their rights to forward particular views or for that matter to dismiss the specific arguments

and knowledge claims made, but rather to describe the activities and arguments made by this

network in comparison with similar initiatives and organizations elsewhere. The purpose is to

investigate whether they use similar framings of reality, examine if there is a strategy around

their use of the media and what their own view is of their role in the climate discourse.

3.1. Research questions

The research problem formulated above will be studied by the guidance of three research

questions.

The initial focus of the thesis is to study the network Klimatupplysningen. Specifics as who

are active in the network, what their aim is, and the impact of their blog will be studied. The

first research question addresses this.

Q1: How are Klimatupplysningen organized?

12

After having gained an understanding of the network, the study shifts focus towards the

comparative content analysis where frames and rhetorical elements are identified and

analyzed. This is mirrored in the second research question.

Q2: What frames are employed and what assumptions are being made?

Thereafter, the study evolves to a discussion section, aimed at analyzing the results from the

two previous questions and contextualizing them. This will also allow an analysis of any

apparent changes over time. The third research question focuses on this.

Q3: What strategies to communicate climate change skepticism can be identified in

Klimatupplysningen?

4. Method and analytical framework

Klimatupplysningen was chosen for this case study due to their size and influence on Swedish

politics (Baas, 2016). Other climate skeptic groups were considered for study, i.e. the blog

Klimatsans and the interview focused YouTube channel SwebbTV. However,

Klimatupplysningen has a long history of blogging (blogging begun in 2007), allowing the

researcher to study changes over time, an interesting layer of analysis and discussion. They

also have more hits on Google and a larger group of followers on Facebook, indicating that

they are more influential than the other groups.

In this case study, 150 blogposts were randomly collected from www.klimatupplysningen.se

for analysis. The blog posts are published between the years 2007 – 2019. Data collection will

be more thoroughly presented in section 5.2.

The identified research questions of this study call for a qualitative methodology, where the

content and meaning of the text is thoroughly studied and analyzed. For these purposes,

comparative content analysis was combined with rhetorical frame analysis (D´Angelo &

Kuypers, 2010). An analytical framework combining the two approaches has been developed

to suit the specific requirements for the aims and material. This is formalized in Figure 1 and

described more closely in Section 4.5.

13

4.1. Limitations of the study

This approach was chosen with awareness of its potential shortcomings regarding reliability.

As pointed out by Schäfer & O'Neill (2017), frames are abstract and not always easily

recognizable in texts, which undoubtedly means that different researchers may find different

frames. As the researcher conducted the analysis alone, instead of a cross-coding, a second

reading and control was made of the coding to minimize any frames or misinterpretations.

The choice of method has another implication regarding reliability. The researcher has aimed

to as far as possible remain impartial and neutral to the material. However, there is a

positioning being made as the researcher, as an environmental scientist, does trust the

scientific consensus and the institutions that authors at Klimatupplysningen are skeptical

towards. This has implications on the coding process of the analysis. As Saldana (2009)

points out, coding is not precise science but rather an act of interpretation. The researchers

own opinion is not relevant to the study and has been disregarded in the coding, but for the

sake of transparency it is important to have mentioned.

4.2. Rhetorical framing

The rhetorical framing approach, inspired by D’Angelo & Kuypers (2010), takes a qualitative

orientation, which is suitable for this study where interpretations of text guide the researcher.

This type of manual holistic framing analysis (Schäfer & O’Neill, 2017) allows for medium

n-sized material and works well for comparison. The researcher searched for the frames

compiled from previous research, which are described in section 4.6. and Appendix A.

Frames with overlapping content (e.g. claiming that science is weak and claiming scientific

and technical uncertainty) were grouped into a unified frame. Frames that were not

considered relevant or too uncommon were excluded. Any frames appearing in the material

that did not fit into previously will be noted and discussed.

4.3. Comparative content analysis

A comparative content analysis, inspired by Erlingsson & Brysiewicz (2017) and Hsieh &

Shannon (2005), combined with comparative frame analysis (Kuypers, 2009) presented

above, guided the researchers’ reading of the material. This approach helped the researcher to

stepwise familiarize with the text deeper while also condensing, coding, categorizing and,

finally, identifying frames in the material. Using content analysis helps the researcher to gain

14

a deeper understanding of the contents of the material and the phenomena at large (Hsieh &

Shannon, 2005).

The performed content analysis included all parts of analyzed blogs; written text, imagery,

layout, references, metaphors etc. In this sense, it is also an analysis of rhetorical devices. In

this study, the rhetorical devices of metaphors, name calling, imagery etc. (see list in Table 1)

was included in the analysis.

4.4. Empirical material

The material analyzed was randomly collected from Klimatupplysningen.se. The collection

was conducted by compiling all blog posts from 12 years (May 2007 to February 2019), and

based on the proportions of posts per year generate random numbers representing the number

of posts to be collected from a certain year. For a complete list of the selected posts, see

Appendix A. Personal email correspondence with a representative of the network has also

been used in the analysis.

The scope of the study limited the number of posts that could be analyzed. 150 posts were

considered reasonable and at the same time sufficiently extensive to be able to draw

conclusions based on the material. The metadata of the selected posts, such as tags, themes

and authors and the number of comments, were noted separately (see Appendix A).

The selection of blog entries for analysis was conducted in a stratified random selection. The

selection was made on the basis of the proportions of posts per year in order to enable an even

distribution according to blog frequency from the beginning of the blog until February 2019.

See Table 3 (Section 6.1) for a summarized table of blogging frequency. For instance, based

on the total amount of blog entries in year 2009 a larger portion of the selection for this

analysis was chosen from this year. The amount of blog entries from one year was divided by

the total amount of entries in order to retrieve a number of the share (percentage) this year

holds. This number was then converted to a number of posts that was selected for this year.

By this logic, 25 posts were randomized from the year 2009 and only 2 from the year 2007.

The randomization function in excel helped the researcher to fetch the exact blog post number

to choose for analysis.

15

4.5. Overarching analytical framework

Using the method of content analysis, aiming to gain understanding of the material analyzed,

combined with framing analysis to gain understanding of underlying perceptions and

assumptions about scientific facts is used in the analysis. The frames resulting from the

analysis are then compared to those identified in previous research.

The analytical framework has been developed specifically for this study. It is inspired by the

five-step model by Erlingsson & Brysiewicz (2017) designed to guide researchers conducting

content analysis to reach higher levels of abstraction in a text. This framework (see Figure 1),

however, contains three consecutive steps designed to help the researcher to identify separate

layers of the text and use the gathered material to analyze the frames executed in the text.

Figure 1 – Overarching analytical framework

The first reading of the material is a condensing of the text in order to identify themes.

Themes are general topics and ideas of each blog post, e.g. economy, climate taxes, fuel taxes

etc. To systematically note themes, the questions asked when reading the material was “What

topic is brought up and what is described as a problem?”.

• Identify topics, claims and meanings

• Summarize material bieflyThemes

• Identify how frames are employed using rhetorical devices such as metaphors, images, name calling/nicknames, quotes etc.

Rhetorical elements

• Clusters of themes creates frames• Identify underlying assumptions• Higher level of abstraction

Categories

16

The second step of the analysis is to note the rhetorical elements in the material, e.g.

metaphors, images, names, comparisons, quotes etc. These helps the researcher to deepen the

analysis and reach underlying meanings and assumptions. Rhetorical elements are indicative

of what frame is used. To guide the researcher, a list of questions identifying rhetorical

elements partially inspired by Mack (2017) is used as guidance. This is available in Table 1

below.

The third, and last, step of the analysis is summarizing the themes and rhetorical elements and

search for the frames that has been compiled from previous research (see Table 3) and look

for any other emerging frames. When this is done, a comparison to the frames described in

Section 6.1 will be conducted and discussed.

All steps are thoroughly noted in a spreadsheet for simple overview.

Table 1. Rhetorical elements

Rhetorical elements searched for Examples How does the text employ external objects and imagery?

E.g. pictures inserted in a blog post to emphasize particular information.

Are metaphors used? E.g. “the clock is ticking” How are comparisons in the text constructed, and what is their effect?

Comparisons can be used to increase or reduce sense of urgency or seriousness

What descriptions are given in the text and what is their effect?

How are problems described? What can be deduced from it?

How does the text use axioms and proverbs?

Axiom; statement of something that is unquestionable, taken for granted. Proverb: well-known saying.

Are quotes used and in what purpose? For instance, to support their own claims or ridicule someone else’s.

Where do the examples come from and how are they used?

Examples indicate what is considered the core of a statement or considered evidentiary of something

How does the text adapt source material? What sources are used indicates what is considered reliable, sound knowledge.

How is humor used in the text? Humor can be used to for instance undermine seriousness or urgency of a problem by use of irony, sarcasm or satire.

In what ways does the text seek to please its audience?

Low hanging fruits, communicating in a way directly with readers by rhetorical questions etc.

Invectives or name-calling Shows positioning of the author against another party

17

4.6. Frames identified in previous research

The frames that are used for the analysis has been compiled by the researcher from previous

research. Any new frames that appeared in the material were noted and discussed in section 7.

A detailed compilation of the definitions and sources to the content of each frame is available

in Appendix A.

Undermine mainstream climate science

This frame combines arguments form the skeptical arena that focuses on undermining, or

“debunking”, the climate scientific basis that is generally accepted in society, for instance that

climate change is sped up by anthropogenic activities. It entails questioning the certainty of

results, questioning the professionality and intents of climate science (e.g. claims of it being

used as political tool or scare tactic). By questioning the validity of science, climate change

skeptics have successfully managed to create a narrative of scientific uncertainty and use this

manufactured uncertainty to bolster their interpretation of current climate situation.

This frame is based on research by McCright & Dunlap (2000), Holtcamp (2012), Cohen

(2001), Nisbet (2009), Broadbent et al (2016) and Jacques et al. (2008).

Benefits

This frame builds on acceptance of the fact that global warming is ongoing, but claims that it

holds benefits to human society, and thus is not in need of ameliorative action. A common

claim in this type of arguments is that global warming leads to more arable land in northern

Europe, which will enable us to feed the starving parts of the world.

This frame is based on results from McCright & Dunlap (2000).

Policy and economic

This frame focuses on the complications and disadvantages from a policy and/ or economic

perspective in accepting and adapting to climate change and global warming, policies as being

unnecessary or infringing on personal freedom. Arguments fitting in this frame can include

scenarios like the western world being threatened in terms of national economy, nation

sovereignty or security by policies and adaptations needed in the face of global climate

change.

The frame also includes economic and development attributes. For instance, what the cost of

mitigation will be, how this affects societies and development possibilities etc.

18

This frame is based on results from McCright & Dunlap (2000), Valkenburg & Semetko

(2000) (also used in Dirix & Gelders, 2010), van Rensburg (2017), Nisbet (2009) and Jacques

et al. (2008).

Conspiratorial

This frame consists of claims mirroring extreme doubts shown by the climate change skeptics

that fits a narrative of a bigger conspiracy. A common example of conspiracy theory in

climate change skepticism is that the IPCC are employed only to spend money on endless

“junk science” in order to keep the masses in terror, creating a smokescreen to serve some

other purpose.

This frame is based on results from McCright & Dunlap (2000), Diethelm & McKee (2009),

Jacques et al. (2008) and Washington (2011).

Own construction of evidence base

This frame consists of claims that defend the sources used and accepted by climate change

skeptics. Often these sources are measured by other standards than those they question, for

instance IPCC. This is apparent, for instance, in the lack of scientific peer review in the

sources they defend, use of so-called “data mining”. This frame includes use of (fake) experts,

cherry picking papers that fits their argumentation, impossible expectations on mainstream

climate research, using very few sources to back up claims and lack of peer reviewed articles.

This frame is based on results from Diethelm & McKee (2009), Cohen (2001), Nisbet (2009),

Washington (2011) and Oreskes & Conway (2012).

Responsibility

The responsibility frame covers questions of whom is to blame for climate change and/or

global warming, whom should bear the burden of mitigating actions and the distribution of

responsibilities between countries or regions / continents.

This frame is based on results from Valkenburg & Semetko (2000) (also used in Dirix &

Gelders), van Rensburg (2017) and Nisbet (2009).

Other frames that may appear in the material were noted and discussed in section 6 Results

and analysis and section 7 Discussion.

19

5. Results and analysis

Figure 2 shows the blog frequency of Klimatupplysningen over the years 2007 – May 2019.

As the figure suggests, there was a positive trend in the number of blog posts between the

years 2007 – 2009 while frequencies have decreased steadily thereafter.

Figure 2. Blog frequency Klimatupplysningen 2007 – 2019

5.1. Organization of Klimatupplysningen

Klimatupplysningen is a blog run by Stockholmsinitiativet, an association consisting of

loosely connected scientists, business leaders and opinion makers with climate skeptic

opinions. Founded under the name The Climate Scam in 2007 (Bloggportalen, a) by Maggie

Thauersköld Crusell, the blog was entrusted to Stockholmsinitiativet on July 1, 2011

(Klimatupplysningen, 2018 a). The then responsible authors renamed the platform to

Stockholmsinitiativet – Klimatupplysningen to more clearly reflect the contents and aim of

the blog (Klimatupplysningen, a). For the purpose of this thesis, I use Klimatupplysningen to

reference them instead of Stockholmsinitiativet. This is to reflect that the analysis will not

incorporate other activities arranged by Stockholmsinitiativet (conferences etc.), the focus is

on the blog Klimatupplysningen specifically.

The aim of Klimatupplysningen is to provide a platform where marginalized perspectives on

climate, energy and debate can meet, and work “towards more thoughtful climate politics”

(Klimatupplysningen, 2018 a), and views the blog as an important tool for this. They intend to

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Blog frequency 2007 - 2019

20

be the counterbalance they consider to be needed in the current debate and apply a skeptical

outlook on commonly accepted issues (Klimatupplysningen, 2018 b). This self-perception of

truth-telling has been identified in previous research by Jacques (2006), which revealed that it

has less to do with a wish to enlighten the masses, and more to do with protecting a status quo

that benefits the representatives’ personal lifestyles.

Today, the blog has eight permanent writers and four guest writers for monthly chronicles

(Klimatupplysningen, a). Apart from these actors, a number of guest bloggers are invited to

blog on Klimatupplysningen. The guest bloggers are encouraged to use a humoristic or

neutral language in their blog posts and connect to topics on climate, environment and energy

from political, economic or scientific perspectives (Klimatupplysningen, 2018 c).

The association uses several modes of communication; blogging, Facebook, lobbying,

conferences and book publishing. They also stress the need to take part in discussions online

and linking to the blog (according to personal correspondence with a representative of

Klimatupplysningen). Their Facebook page has 1478 likes and 1441 followers (2019-05-22).

The Facebook page is mainly a feed to disseminate the blog posts and to converse with like-

minded people. According to a blog post from September 30, 2018, the blog has enjoyed an

increasing amount of readers during the summer of 2018. This is explained by the 2018

general election in Sweden and that the more alarmist information is broadcasted, the more

people turn skeptical (Klimatupplysningen, 2018 d).

The blogging frequency over time has changed significantly, see Table 3 below. 2009 is

clearly the most active year, with 1142 blogposts. Since 2009, the activity has decreased

steadily. In 2018, the network had its second to least active year with 293 blog posts. Despite

this, the commenting activity has stayed high over the years and now each post has some 40-

80 comments. The commentary field is an important place of interaction between the readers

and between readers and authors. Seven of the blog posts stand out for the high amount of

comments they attracted; 17, 41, 76, 80, 124, 126 and 127. See Table 2. Looking more closely

at what blog posts attract most comments reveals that Maggie, Ingemar Nordin and guest

bloggers attract the most comments. The most occurring frame in the most commented posts

is media & debate, which reflects the role of mediators and forum for discussion that

Klimatupplysningen plays in the climate skeptic sphere.

21

Table 2. Most commented posts

Post no.

Title Date Com-ments

Author Frame

17 Ännu mera fritt prat 2009-08-01 194 Maggie Media & debate frame

41 Ofriserade tankar 2009-07-19 334 Maggie Own scientific conception. Conspirational.

76 Akasofu: Återhämtningen från Lilla Istiden pågår fortfarande 2011-01-02 193 Ingemar

Nordin Undermine MSS.

80 Peak Oil – onödig alarmism 2012-11-18 247 Ingemar Nordin

Economic. Media & debate (opening for other writers)

124 Öppen Tråd 2015-03-14 182 Redaktör Klimat Media & debate.

126 Debatt i Expressen om uppvämningspausen: Karlén hade rätt igen!

2015-01-09 222 Pehr Björnbom

Undermine MSS (climate, temperature evidence.)

127 Sagan om det vedervärdiga koldioxidmonstret 2015-03-19 188 Jacob

Nordangård

Undermine IPCC. Media & debate (marginalized). Humor / Sarcasm.

Table 3. Blogging frequency Klimatupplysningen

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total

2007 6 5 1 12

2008 4 10 43 42 38 73 72 68 65 64 73 76 628

2009 96 105 100 103 108 108 81 56 107 94 98 86 1142

2010 91 87 79 72 70 57 51 49 41 86 106 69 858

2011 88 79 83 58 70 45 71 72 72 80 86 76 880

2012 65 62 71 60 73 59 62 57 48 57 50 63 727

2013 58 60 62 53 58 56 55 47 63 44 44 54 654

2014 49 44 48 51 45 41 46 43 39 40 43 40 529

2015 38 40 41 40 41 31 33 25 34 33 40 39 435

2016 31 26 30 31 28 30 26 30 30 34 30 25 351

2017 26 27 30 25 24 27 23 22 24 27 22 25 302

2018 23 22 27 25 22 23 26 24 22 29 25 25 293

2019 26 33 59

Tot. 595 595 614 560 583 555 546 493 545 588 618 578 6870

Source: www.klimatupplysningen.se

22

By the end of 2013, the blog had reached roughly eleven million readers in total

(Klimatupplysningen, d). In 2013, 2,6 million readers allegedly visited their blog. On

September 27, 2013, when the IPCC released the Summary for Policymakers for the AR 5

report, the blog reached 32 000 unique visitors on that day alone (ibid). After

Stockholmsinitiativet took over the site in 2011, the number of yearly visitors has increased

by about one million and in 2018 they had some 2,7 million visitors (according to

correspondence with a representative of the network). These numbers indicate that use of the

Internet for information and/or news about climate politics and science is increasing and that

Klimatupplysningen is an increasingly important communication platform.

The website bloggportalen.se collects data over the blogs that are included in their records. In

their registry, Klimatupplysningen is the most visited private owned blog in the category

“Climate” in Sweden (Bloggportalen, b). A disclaimer to this is that the blog owners must

announce their site to be included in the registry, which means that there is an unknown

number of unrecorded blogs.

These results point toward Klimatupplysningen being a fairly influential platform for

dissemination of climate skeptic information. Anshelm & Hultman (2014) also highlight that

shortly after the Stockholm Initiative was established, four of Sweden’s biggest newspapers

(i.e. Expressen, SvD, DI and Aftonbladet) begun publishing opinion pieces skeptical on

climate change. In other words, the skeptics have access to influence the media (or had effect

on the discourse).

In the next section, the results from the frame analysis of the 150 blog posts will be presented

and analyzed. A compilation of the frames, detailed description and references articles is

available in Appendix A.

5.2. Identified frames and comparison

The results from the frame analysis is presented in order of popularity. Due to shortage of

space, only a few examples are given to exemplify each frame use. Note that one blog post

can contain several frames concurrently. 9 posts could not be tagged with any frame and

23

therefore are left out of analysis (these posts covered e.g. current weather, sun activity and a

children’s’ book recently published).

Table 4. Frame occurrence

Frame Times used

% of total3

1 Undermine mainstream climate science

67 44,7 %

2 Policy/economic implications 43 28,7 %

3 Media & debate (not previously identified in research)

40 26,7 %

4 Own scientific conception 23 15,3 %

5 Humor (not identified in previous research)

19 12,7 %

6 Responsibility 7 4,7 %

7 Conspiratorial 4 2,7 %

8 Benefits 4 2,7 %

The results from the analysis show that the most common frame used is the Undermining

mainstream science frame. This appeared in almost 45 % of the blog posts, in multiple

contexts and covers many different topics. It contains questioning mainstream climate

science, undermining the IPCC and/or UN, questioning motives of scientists etc. The fact that

it occurs in many of the blog posts an be expected, as undermining an opponent is a widely

used tactic to win arguments in debates by climate skeptics (Marshall, 2015) and it can be

seen as one of the basic functions of speech acts in argumentative rhetorics (Hellspong, 2013).

It occurs through several types of language use, often in a way typical of the specific author

blogging. This frame represents the biggest width of expressions. To exemplify the width, a

few citations will be discussed. For instance, from one post arguing against the “hockey stick”

graph presented by Michael Mann, using a notably neutral tone from post no. 104; After Marcott and co-authors published an article in Science with a new hockey stick

chart, also called the ‘super-hockey stick’ because it covers eleven thousand years. This

has also raised much questioning and criticism in the skeptical blog world.

3 The percentage represents the frame occurrence in the whole material of 150 blog posts, not in relation to the other frames (and therefore exceeds 100 %).

24

This statement gives neutral explanation of what is considered the problem (the

hockey stick graph) and what reactions this has spurred in the skeptical world, which

the reader understands is of opposing opinion. The language use is factual.

A post using more distrustful, undermining use of language may look like this, from post no.

18;

In previous conflicts, there have been clear victims and a clearly defined enemy. [...]

We were guilty of the release of the monster. Even worse was that every morning we

had to see the villain in the mirror. It was you and me. Everything was our fault. The

sinful and bad man who through his use of oil, coal and gas would create his own

purgatory. Think how much easier it was when the villain lived across the border and

spoke a foreign language.

This language use is war-like and inspired by religion (purgatory). The suggestive

exaggerations (hyperboles) are rhetorical tropes, connected to irony. Hyperboles are often

used as exaggerations – disconnected from perspectives of reality as we can see in the

citation above, but rather attempt to mediate the emotions of the writer to an audience

(Hellspong, 2013). This frame was also used to misrepresent their opponents, an example

from post no. 72; But for some catastrophe mongers, every conceivable, or unthinkable, connection to the

threat from the carbon dioxide is something that they are more than happy to express.

The mistrust is aimed towards individual scientists, the Swedish EPA (article 60), the media

(article 85), the UN (article 56, 67, 27, 36, 43, 46) and quite often aimed at IPCC. For

instance, in post no. 50 (about climate models used by the IPCC); A model only expresses the subjective guesses of each research group regarding certain

input data and parameters. Nothing else. Making average estimates of this only gives

averages of guesses and is not a measure of how close to reality it is. The uncertainties

are just as great as for each individual model. You can't make them go away.

This discrepancy between report and summary rarely reaches the media, or to the public

and politicians. The question is, what do the participating researchers do? Do they bite

the bullet, shut up and watch the money flowing in, or do they draw a line?

The cite above gives insights to both the mistrust in IPCC and scientists. Another post

provides examples of a number of known skeptical tools; the mistrust in IPCC as well as

25

banks and finance; using Al Gore as archetype of a crook; placing climate action on par with

making money, and finally; polarizing those involved in climate action with ‘regular people’

that will find themselves on the losing end, i.e. feelings of marginalization, exemplifying the

responsibility frame (post 46); […] They will follow the IPCC line, despite their falsehoods and lies. A lot of money has

been invested in what is called the ‘climate industry’. The governments see this as a

fantastic opportunity for taxation and improvement of central government finances. Banks,

finance companies and wealthy private individuals see great opportunities for lucrative

business in emission trading. For example, Al Gore, who is well on his way to becoming a

billionaire. Apparently also Dr. Pachauri, the head of the IPCC. Us ordinary citizens will

probably find ourselves in being poor, probably poorer and paying all the rising costs and

taxes that the IPCC's proposal will lead to.

The mistrust in IPCC has been demonstrated in previous research (Anshelm & Hultman,

2014). Dunlap & McCright (2010) identified the same tendencies in conservative movements

in the early 1990’s, presenting a shift from the ‘red threat’ of the Cold War in the 80’s to a

new, ‘green threat’ of the environmental movement.

The second most used frame is the Political & economic frame, consisting of arguments of

political nature and/or economic costs/benefits or implications. It occurred in 43 of the posts

analyzed, just under 29 %. In several instances, the posts cover policy implications in

specifically energy production. One example is given in post 119: It is absurd to subsidize the expansion of energy production that only works when it is not

needed. Is it really hard to understand that the sun is not shining at night?

And in post 112:

Since European politicians have been leashed by the greens, with aims set for a

meaningless venture on so-called "renewable" energy and without slightest

consideration of energy security, it will take several years before shale gas extraction in

Europe can get started seriously. What remains then? […] Coal. Europe has a lot of

mining already in progress. […] I’ll sum it up as; Green utopianism meets hard,

political reality.

The example shows lack of understanding of technical aspects of solar power as well as a

simple use of rhetorical question to diminish the value of subsidizing solar power and other

26

sources of energy, for instance waterpower, the most used energy source in Sweden

(Holmström, 2018). Instead, coal is presented as a top alternative.

Most posts contained several frames simultaneously, one illustration of this is given in post

148: It is claimed that a number of conflicts in the world are due to climate change - such as

drought in Syria - so that many of those who come here should be seen as climate

refugees. The main message in the article is that if Sweden gets flooded and Swedes have

to flee, we should not be welcomed where we go - because it is our own use of fossil fuels

that caused it. Actually, I don’t understand the logic, if Sweden gets warmer, it becomes a

comfortable country to live in - why would anyone want to move?

Although, with a climate policy destroying our entire energy supply and laws to ban

meat-eating except one day of the week (I hope that it will be Sundays) and driving

everywhere where anyone would like to drive, maybe there are quite a few who would

like to move. […] Us opposed to climate policy are certainly not alone in the world - but

we seem to have the same problems everywhere. We are not heard. The media also seem

to be threatened everywhere and they want to silence those presenting uncomfortable

facts.

The citation above shows several characteristics (frames emphasized in italics); lack of

understanding or simply unaccepting of the climate effects and risks presented (undermining

climate change), commenting political situation and fabricating policies to use as counter-

argument (political frame), sarcasm (humor), feelings of marginalization and mistrust in

media (media & debate frame). Several of these characteristics are known to be used by

organized climate change denialists since the 80’s, earning them the epithet “merchants of

doubt”, thoroughly presented by Oreskes and Conway (2012).

A new frame emerged in the material that for the purpose of this study is termed Media &

debate. The term aims to reflect the variety of characteristics included, all with ties to their

role in the climate debate and media reporting. This frame involves a number of attributes

considered by the researcher to have common denominators; recommending reading, critique

against mainstream media for marginalizing unconventional stances, giving space for

likeminded to guest blog and opening up for discussion and networking on their blog. This

frame is the third most used in the material and occurs in 26 % of the posts. This frame

contains reflections upon their own role in the climate change debate (and, in extension, the

27

discourse on climate change and global warming), examples of using the blog as a forum for

debate, providing traction to other skeptical sources by recommending reading and, finally,

posts containing self-reflexive language presenting them as marginalized. This is evident by

several means. First, regularly (weekly/monthly) the blog is used for networking and

discussion on general climate skepticism (sometimes on given themes, such as energy, wind

& power especially showing in the material, see Appendix B) under the heading “Open

thread”. The blog post in and of itself does not make any claims on the topic, however the

commentary field attracts much attention, with the most intense “open thread” gaining almost

200 comments (see post no 17, Appendix B). In the same spirit, the blog also welcomes guest

writers to share their opinions on free topics, which also resides within this frame. In the

material analyzed, 5 posts were written by guest bloggers. Opening up a blog site for guest

bloggers is not controversial per se. However, this blog has roughly 10 000 daily readers,

allowing the assumption that the guest posts gain some traction. This frame also contains

posts that recommends reading elsewhere, more than 81 % of the posts analyzed contained

links to other sites (see Appendix B). This is common in the blog posts, sometimes as a part

of a discussion but also as sole purpose of the post, such as post 33 and 39 “Todays links” – a

recurring type of post containing links to news, debate or blog articles online. The media

debate frame also incorporates posts where outside writers’ work is republished, or guest

bloggers are invited to share their view. This further strengthens their role as mediator of

other knowledge producers of information in line with their value base. Finally, this frame

contains posts offering general critique against the mainstream media coverage of climate

change / global warming news and how they are marginalized and kept out of the debate. This

can be seen in post no 139 (covering a summary of a book and a conference held by the

Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank spreading climate change skepticism); Steve Milloy describes in detail the ongoing Green Developmental Change. He warned that

such a utopia can hardly take root in a democracy. […] But there has been traditional climate

research and researchers who made themselves heard and seen thanks to the internet, for

example The Heartland Institute, which has been working to educate on climate science based

on scientific principles. However, that message has so far been difficult to pass through the

Free-Word Censorship. So, in the nick of time, Donald Trump appeared on the scene. It

changed everything. […]

For many of us who have been marginalized, ignored or demonized over the last eight years,

this conference brings real joy and, indeed, redress.

28

The excerpt above shows examples of undermining mainstream science, political frame,

media & debate frame by means of marginalization as well as the own scientific conception

frame by means of cherry-picking sources that serves their purpose.

The frame of Own scientific construction was the fourth most commonly executed frame,

used in 16 % of the material. The most common characteristic of this frame in the material

was cherry picking of articles/evidence and the use of fake experts. A clear illustration of this

frame is found in post no 110, a reply to a scientific tv-show by an oceanographic professor

redistributed via Klimatupplysningen: High CO2 and thus the dissolution of carbon dioxide in the oceans is probably rather

beneficial than a disadvantage to marine life. Serious problems have not come to light

despite significant research efforts. In the TV program Vetenskapens Värld, Nov 11,

although claiming the whole sea was "threatened by acidification", no substantial

problems were demonstrated despite the obvious ambition to do just that.

Cherry-picking of sources was also evident in reoccurring referencing to UAH temperature

data. UAH data has been criticized for giving divergent results compared to other

measurement techniques (Abraham, 2017) and the scientists behind the measurements (John

Cristy and Roy Spencer) are connected to climate skeptic think tanks and religious groups

such as The Marshall Institute, the Heartland Institute and Evangelical Climate Initiative

(SkepticalScience, 2018, a & b). Other skeptics, scientists and lobbyists are frequently

referred to in the material, creating an echo-chamber of skeptical notions.

The fourth most used frame in the analyzed material can be termed humor and is new in the

sense that it has not been described in the reviewed earlier scientific literature on climate

skepticism. This frame entails blog posts using sarcasm, satire, irony or ridicule. This frame

was often combined with other frames, especially undermining science. Often, these posts

contained images as a way to easily convey the message, for instance Figure 3 below

retrieved from post no. 47;

29

Figure 3. Comic strip from Klimatupplysningen

Sarcasm as a rhetorical device serves to challenge facts that are generally considered accepted

by ridiculing them (Watson, 2011). This frame was also expressed by sarcastic posts where

the author him/herself had re-written a previously famous piece of a poem or someone’s re-

write of a classical summer song with new, sarcastic wording to ridicule climate change

“alarmists”. This is exemplified in e.g. post no. 70 “Sunday poem”, a poem aimed towards the

Swedish environmental Minister Anders Carlgren, and post no. 100 “Climate song in

Walpurgis time”. This way of situating complex scientific information in a setting easily

identifiable for a reader and ridiculing the importance of the facts helps to polarize the

situation and presenting it as a laughing matter.

The responsibility frame was used in just under 5 % of the posts, indicating it is not a

very common topic for discussion. The posts discuss who hold responsibility to

combat climate change, who is responsible for the costs and who are to adapt to

coming changes it may bring. Post no 48 gives an example;

Do you send many emails? Do you care about the future of your children and

grandchildren? Then maybe you should think twice time the next time you click

‘Send’. At The Guardian's Green Living blog, we are informed about the carbon

footprint that our e-mail generates. […] The author's solution is (surprise, surprise) a

tax on email. […] Just the thought of calculating the carbon footprint of an email

message – no wonder the number of skeptics in the world is growing.

The frames benefits and conspiratorial were used in only 2,7 % of the analyzed material

each. Though not very common, the material analyzed shows some interesting examples of

30

these two frames. For instance, the benefits frame from post no.139, or the following quote

from post no 110;

"More CO2 is beneficial primarily because it leads to increased biological growth."

"This reduction in the pH value of the sea water can certainly lead to some change in

the ocean's plant and animal life, probably more in favor than disadvantage."

The conspiratorial frame was difficult to detect while aiming at avoiding over analyzed or

prejudicated conclusions on the material. A few examples still stood out even by rigorous

assessments of what passed as conspiratorial. The following excerpt from post no 2 stood out; The debate on climate change has turned into a campaign and propaganda. [...] The

climate alarmists are clearly opposed to capitalism, market economy, free trade and

economic growth. It is bad news for the underdeveloped part of the world whose only

chance of escaping poverty is continued globalization and free access to cheap energy

sources. […] Al Gore's grand plan for limiting global warming should also be scrapped

because it affects everyone, but hits hardest against the poor. Several billions of dollars

have been spent by the climatists around the world in recent years. Using the phrase "as a

result of global warming" is today a foolproof way to ensure continued research grants

and sponsorship. […] But it's time to knock the bottom out of the empty threats. The most

important issue of the future is not the climate, but being able to distinguish between reality

and imagination, truth and propaganda.

The passage above also exemplifies how close the conspiratorial frame is to the

“undermining mainstream science” frame, making them difficult to separate in the

material.

5.3. Strategies in communication Klimatupplysningen meet the criteria of a countermovement presented by Meyer &

Staggenborg (1996). The three criteria for a countermovement to emerge are 1) the movement

of opposition has reached success, 2) they threaten the counter-movements interests and 3)

there is political support available for opposition. This provides explanations in terms of why

Klimatupplysningen (and the climate change skeptics in general) choose to attack specific and

general parts of mainstream science. It also provides a sense of seriousness to the issue of

climate change skeptics – they are not preaching to their own masses but have an extended

reach and opportunity to influence readers’ attitudes. Klimatupplysningen have been revealed

31

to have influence on the nationalist social conservative party Sweden Democrats (Baas,

2016), access to media (Anshelm & Hultman, 2015) and a seemingly growing reader base

(personal correspondence with a representative of the network).

Skeptics as countermovements tend to communicate in ways that mimic the communication

forms of climate science (Oreskes & Conway, 2012). A common example is the NIPCC

reports that uses almost the exact same layout as IPCC reports and states lists of scientists that

support these claims (Plehwe, 2014). However, none of the scientists have relevant scientific

background to make claims about weather and climate data, and the editors are from the

Heartland Institute. This can be understood as wanting to piggy-back on the legitimacy and

credibility that the IPCC are associated with.

Looking at the development of the blogging activity over time shows that there has been

changes in terms of who is blogging. The first four years was only authored by Maggie, who

then handed over the blog platform to the Stockholm Initiative. They use several authors and

invite guest bloggers, thus widening the circle of skeptics. Inviting guest bloggers, and

disseminating other skeptics’ work, and thus acting as an echo chamber of skeptic claims, also

creates the illusion that the skeptics are as numerous as the climate change believers.

6. Discussion

The study has shown that Klimatupplysningen to a large extent follows the patterns and

frames of climate change skeptics identified in previous research. This confirms the

discussion by Anshelm & Hultman (2015) that there is no such thing as local skepticism. This

is a phenomenon that works actively across borders, using the same type of methods to plant

seeds of doubt and thus create a debate where there, scientifically, is nothing to debate.

6.1. Organization of Klimatupplysningen

Looking at the intensity of blogging it is clear that there is a temporal effect. The high

intensity in blogging in 2009 may be partially explained by the COP 15 meeting in

Copenhagen. This meeting attracted much attention from media prior, during and after being

held due to the topics discussed and the fact that it was called a failure (Vaughan & Adam,

2009). What else is noteworthy is the fact that one single author was blogging between 2007 –

2011. This may have added a personal touch to the blog and the high intensity certainly lends

power to the site in terms of affecting reader’s understanding of climate change. The current

32

bloggers have academic titles (none, however, in a relevant field to comment on climate

change or global warming professionally) and some tend to make explicit their titles and use

of scientific terminology, presumably to add legitimacy to claims.

Reflecting on their use of the blog it is safe to assume that it is a conscious act to intensively

disseminate other climate skeptic information. This indicates that the underlying assumptions

are that they are not welcome in, or they are silenced by, mainstream media and therefore

must be active in spreading their ‘truths’ using the means available to them.

The frames executed by Klimatupplysningen concludes that they can be included in the

description of the denial machine (Piltz, 2008). By his definition, these groups use self-

appointed ‘experts’ as representatives of an academic trustworthiness to lend credence to their

claims. Helped by this, and connections to think tanks and/or industry, they manage to

convince a portion of the public and have influence on policy making in a climate

conservative way. This further strengthens the proposal by Anshelm & Hultman (2014;112)

that there are no ‘local’ skeptics – they are part of a global movement of systematic denial of

what generally in societies is considered robust, reliable science.

6.2. Frames used and underlying assumptions

The frames revealed in the material show some agreement to those found in previous

research. Undermining mainstream climate science was most used, often in combination with

other frames. Many rhetorical elements were used in executing this frame as it spanned over a

wide array of topics. The second most used frame, political & economic, was only used in

combination with undermining mainstream science 4 times in the material. This might

indicate that these two frames are part of different communication strategies; the political &

economical an offensive one where undermining the opposite side (defensive) is not always

necessary.

The humor frame shows that language used in a blog is more crowd-pleasing and harsher than

other types of communication modes. It also exemplifies an effective tool to undermine the

seriousness or urgency. For instance, ridiculing by way of made up poems or songs is

especially crowd-pleasing since it holds no significant efforts to refute scientific evidence or

present own facts. Using a humorous setting leads to multiple assumptions. It suggests that,

33

perhaps expectedly, they themselves do not take science seriously. It may even suggest that

they make assumptions that humor makes their cherry-picked information, or their attacks on

mainstream science, more readable and digestible to readers. It is clear that they use humor as

a tool to undermine opponents.

The media & debate frame is also a new contribution, showing the importance of

understanding internet based (social) media outlets in further detail. It shows that

Klimatupplysningen plays a part not only in climate skeptical knowledge production, but also

in dissemination when they act as a megaphone, an outlet, to other likeminded. The frequent

use of the blog as forwarding other skeptical information includes them in the description by

Elsasser & Dunlap (2013) as amplifiers of skeptical messages with a large reader base. They

are reflexive in terms of mainstream media not accepting their point of view and expressing

feelings of marginalization and exclusion.

In resemblance with other skeptical groups, they find mainstream climate science and media

reporting to be substandard, biased and untrustworthy. The science is written off as

tendentious, or simply incorrect. The scientists are implied to conduct research for the money

in it. In some cases, they even suggest that researchers and the IPCC have ideological goals,

and therefore have joined forces to achieve these goals.

6.3. Reflections on strategies used

The findings from this study clarifies that a strategy used by Klimatupplysningen is

manufacturing uncertainty (Dunlap & McCright, 2010). Using fake ‘experts’, questioning

facts and suggesting there is scientific uncertainty or conflict is the main tactics of the “denial

machine” (ibid). This blogging part of the ‘conservative echo chamber’ creates a network of

bloggers, followers and skeptical scientists that are dedicated to undermining what is

generally considered true of the climate situation (Elsasser & Dunlap, 2013).

The strategy of undermining an opponent by sarcasm, name-calling, polarizing, and even

creating a scientific reality where a handful of trusted scientists dictate what is to be

considered factual and scientifically robust, is not unique of Klimatupplysningen as the results

above show. Medimorec & Pennycook (2015) concluded in their comparison of IPCC and

NIPCC reports that slandering, emotional language and tentative language use is more

34

common for the skeptics, while the language use of IPCC is restrictive. This is explained by

researchers in the IPCC having higher stakes and the opponent skeptical side using sharper

language to more efficiently attack (Medimorec & Pennycook, 2015). This is in line with the

language use of Klimatupplysningen that often uses exaggerations, prescribing opinions to

someone else and using this against them and ridiculing. However, the use of blogging as

main communication strategy invites some reflections. A blog allows colloquial, everyday

language use that fits the needs of the readers. A blog platform, modern in comparison to print

media, but quite outdated in the online sphere, that still gains increasing traffic is surprising.

By repeating their messages time and again, they are successful in their goal – to broadcast

the alternative view of the issue. By planting seeds of doubt, where there is none, an illusion

of scientific conflict or uncertainty is activated. This is a success for the skeptics. Doubt leads

to debate, and debating a topic indicates that the other side is wrong. Even in the cases of

climate science having presented incorrect hypotheses or methodological errors, the debate is

not a reflection of the scientific situation. The climate change skeptics have had significant

success in their persuasion of the public that there are uncertainties surrounding proof of

climate change / global warming or, at least, that the scientific community lacks consensus on

the facts (Whitmarsh, 2011; Boykoff, 2011; Portinga et al., 2001). Doubt is a common trait of

the scientific procedure, and helpful to ensure scientists do not leap to conclusions (Oreskes &

Conway, 2012). But as Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway so clearly points out; “It also makes

science vulnerable to misrepresentation, because it is so easy to take uncertainties out of

context and create the impression that everything is unresolved” (Oreskes & Conway, 2012:

34). This has had great consequences to policymaking internationally, the latest proof being

USA pulling out of the Paris Accord (2016). Important lessons must be learned quickly

regarding how to communicate climate change to lay public, several proposals have been

presented in previous research (see for instance Washington, 2011; Boykoff, 2004; Priest,

2011; Marshall, 2015; Oreskes & Conway, 2011).

Maibach, Roser-Renouf, and Leiserowitz (2008, p. 497) argue for using a targeted approach

of employing different frames for communicating with different segments of the American

public. McCright et al. (2016) suggests that framing should be used as a communication tool

to gain acceptance from the public for proposed policy. Values, feelings, opposition,

polarization and defense of own values and lifestyle must be adhered to when communicating

about these issues.

35

7. Conclusions

Analyzing frames shows that Klimatupplysningen, and other climate skeptic groups for that

matter, are not formed and active in a vacuum. They are a reaction to political and societal

demands that threaten their way of life and position in society. Counter-movements appear

where a movement has had success. They are protective of the materialistic values and

sociopolitical positions granted to them in current industrial discourse and are to some extent

waging a war against the mainstream science and media. They also view themselves as truth

tellers in a clouded medial environment, where questioning climate science or policy is not

allowed.

When considering the results of this study it is useful to consider the essential differences

between the skeptic material being compared. There are fundamental differences between a

blog platform and other fora of climate skepticism as collected by previous research. This

study therefore opens up a new area of studies that needs further investigation. Drawing

comparisons between Klimatupplysningen and the thematic frames collected in previous

studies from other types of material is justified by the fact that skeptics commonly share some

characteristics. The context of a blog may potentially intensify the characteristics as the norms

of expression and academic structure is not relevant. An interesting path for future research

may lie in understanding more of the blogosphere in climate skeptic circles.

The frames used by Klimatupplysningen mainly matches those identified in previous

research. New frames that emerged (media & debate and humor) may be considered

contextual for the use of a blogging platform. This type of communication platform allows

use of rhetorical tropes in a wider extent than for instance publishing reports or debate

articles.

Climate change skeptics has challenged much urgently needed policies in e.g. America. To

ensure the needed societal responses to keep global warming below 2° C, there is a need to

understand how skepticism is reproduced. Adding to current knowledge on for instance

cognitive dissonance, protectionist and conservative ideologies and fear, the findings from

this study on frames and their underlying assumptions has hopefully provided some new

insights.

36

8. Future research

Although the field of climate change skepticism has enjoyed much scientific attention, there is

still much in need of researching. This study has briefly connected increasing climate change

skepticism to new ways of communicating news through social media. There is a need to

bridge the research gap between these fields, both by studying in detail the effect that social

media has on our interpretation of the science and news, and by thoroughly researching

spreading non-mainstream ideas and audience theory. The study conducted by McCright et al.

in 2016 is the first of this kind, more are needed.

Even though Sweden thus far harbors wide acceptance of the fact that climate change is

happening, it is caused by human activity and that we need to adapt society to more

environmentally sustainable options, groups of skeptics are emerging. Other skeptic groups,

for instance the blog platform Klimatsans or the webb-tv channel SwebbTV, also needs

scrutinizing. Other Nordic countries, as well as other parts of the world (less developed), are

useful to study as skepticism has not yet gained ground and societal acceptance as in, for

instance, America.

37

References Abrahan, J. 2017. More errors identified in contrarian climate scientists' temperature estimates. The Guardian. 2017-05-11. Available on: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/11/more-errors-identified-in-contrarian-climate-scientists-temperature-estimates [Accessed: 2019-04-19]. Aklin & Urpelainen, 2014. Perceptions of scientific dissent undermine public support for environmental policy. Environmental Science and Policy, 38, pp.173–177. Anshelm, J. & Hultman, M. (2014) A green fatwā? Climate change as a threat to the masculinity of industrial modernity. NORMA: International Journal for Masculinity Studies, 9:2, 84-96, DOI: 10.1080/18902138.2014.908627 Anshelm, J. & Hultman, M. (2015). Discourses of global climate change: apocalyptic framing and political antagonisms. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Arrhenius, Svante (1987[1896]). On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground. Stockholm: Institutionen för uppvärmnings- och ventilationsteknik, Tekniska högsk. Baas, D. (2016). SD-politik styrs dolt av klimatförnekare. 2016-10-19. Available on: https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/sd-politik-styrs-dolt-av-klimatfornekare/ [Accessed 2018-12-20] Björnberg, K., Karlsson, M., Gilek, M. and Hansson, S. (2017). Climate and environmental science denial: A review of the scientific literature published in 1990–2015. Journal of Cleaner Production, 167, pp.229-241. Bloggportalen.

a) The Climate Scam. Available on: https://www.bloggportalen.se/BlogPortal/view/BlogDetails?id=24754 [Accessed: 2019-05-02]

b) Mest besökta privata bloggarna i kategorin miljö. Available on; https://www.bloggportalen.se/BlogPortal/view/TopLists?tl=1&categoryId=17 [Accessed 2019-02-05]

Boykoff, M. T. & Boykoff, J. M., 2007. Climate change and journalistic norms: A case-study of US mass-media coverage. Geoforum, 38(6), pp.1190–1204. Boykoff, M. T. (2011). Who speaks for the climate?: making sense of media reporting on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

38

Boykoff, M. T. & Olson, S. K. (2013) ‘Wise contrarians’: a keystone species in contemporary climate science, politics and policy, Celebrity Studies, 4:3, 276-291, DOI: 10.1080/19392397.2013.831618 Broadbent, J. et al., 2016. Conflicting Climate Change Frames in a Global Field of Media Discourse. Socius, 2(1), pp. Socius, 25 October 2016, Vol.2. Broomell, Budescu & Por, 2015. Personal experience with climate change predicts intentions to act. Global Environmental Change, 32, pp.67–73. Brulle, R., 2014. Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations. Climatic Change, 122(4), pp.681–694. Capstick, S. B. & Pidgeon, N. F., 2014. What is climate change scepticism? Examination of the concept using a mixed methods study of the UK public. Global Environmental Change, 24(1), pp.389–401. Carvalho, A., 2007. Ideological cultures and media discourses on scientific knowledge: re-reading news on climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 16(2), pp.223–243. Chalmers Tekniska Högskola. 2018-08-19 (modified: 2018-08-29). Climate change denial strongly linked to right-wing nationalism. Available on: https://www.chalmers.se/en/departments/tme/news/Pages/Climate-change-denial-strongly-linked-to-right-wing-nationalism.aspx Cohen, Stanley (2001). States of denial: knowing about atrocities and suffering. Cambridge: Polity Press Corner, A., Whitmarsh, L. & Xenias, D., 2012. Uncertainty, scepticism and attitudes towards climate change: biased assimilation and attitude polarisation. Climatic Change, 114(3), pp.463–478. Crowley, Sharon & Hawhee, Debra (2004). Ancient rhetorics for contemporary students. 3. ed. New York: Pearson/Longman D'Angelo, P. & Kuypers, J. A. (red.) (2010). Doing news framing analysis: empirical and theoretical perspectives. New York: Routledge Diethelm, P. & McKee, M., 2009. Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond? The European Journal of Public Health, 19(1), pp.2–4.

39

Dirikx, A. & Gelders, D., 2010. To frame is to explain: A deductive frame-analysis of Dutch and French climate change coverage during the annual UN Conferences of the Parties. Public Understanding of Science, 19(6), pp.732–742. Dunlap, R.E., & McCright, A. M. (2010). Climate change denial: sources, actors and strategies. In C. Lever-Tracy (Ed), Routledge handbook of Climate Change and Society. (pp. 240 – 259). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Elsasser, S.W. & Dunlap, R.E., 2013. Leading Voices in the Denier Choir: Conservative Columnists’ Dismissal of Global Warming and Denigration of Climate Science. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(6), pp.754–776. Erlingsson & Brysiewicz, 2017. A hands-on guide to doing content analysis. African Journal of Emergency Medicine, 7(3), pp.93–99. Entman, R. M. (1993) “Framing: Towards clarification of a fractured paradigm”, Journal of Communication, vol 4, pp 51-58 Eurobarometer (EB), 2017: Special Eurobarometer 459: Climate change. Brussels: European Commission. Feldman, L., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C. and Leiserowitz, A. (2011). Climate on Cable: The Nature and Impact of Global Warming Coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 17(1), pp.3-31. Gunter, B., Campbell, V., Touri, M. and Gibson, R. (2009). Blogs, news and credibility. Aslib Proceedings, 61(2), pp.185-204. Gunter, B. & Rowlands, I. (2009). The Google Generation: Are Ict Innovations Changing Information Seeking Behaviour? [Elektronic resource]. Chandos Publishing Hart, P.S., 2011. One or Many? The Influence of Episodic and Thematic Climate Change Frames on Policy Preferences and Individual Behavior Change. Science Communication, 33(1), pp.28–51. Hart, P.S. & Nisbet, E.C., 2012. Boomerang Effects in Science Communication: How Motivated Reasoning and Identity Cues Amplify Opinion Polarization About Climate Mitigation Policies. Communication Research, 39(6), pp.701–723. Hellspong, Lennart (2013). Argumentationens retorik Handbok. 1. uppl. Lund: Studentlitteratur

40

Holmström, S. (2018-11-12.). Energibalans i Sverige, elproduktion. Ekonomifakta Svenskt Näringsliv. Available on: https://www.ekonomifakta.se/fakta/energi/energibalans-i-sverige/elproduktion/ [Accessed: 2019-05-03] Holtcamp, W., 2012. Flavors of uncertainty: the difference between denial and debate. Environmental health perspectives, 120(8), pp.a314–9. Hsieh, H.-F. & Shannon, S.E., 2005. Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), pp.1277–1288. IPCC International Panel on Climate Change. (2014) Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp.

IPCC, 2014: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Jacques, P., 2006. The Rearguard of Modernity: Environmental Skepticism as a Struggle of Citizenship. Global Environmental Politics, 6(1), pp.76–101. Jacques, P.J., Dunlap, R.E. & Freeman, M., 2008. The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism. Environmental Politics, 17(3), pp.349–385. Klimatupplysningen (2018)

a) Om bloggen. Available on: http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/om-bloggen [Accessed 2018-09-16]

b) Om oss. Available on: http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/om-oss/. [Accessed 2018-09-16]

c) Anvisningar för inlägg. Availble on: http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/anvisningar-for-inlagg/. [Accessed: 2018-09-16]

d) Toppenår för klimatupplysningen. Available on: http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/2013/12/29/toppenar-2013-for-klimatupplysningen/). [Accessed: 2019-02-11]

KTH, Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan. (2017) Klimatförnekelse stort problem även i Sverige. Available on: https://www.kth.se/forskning/artiklar/klimatfornekelse-stort-problem-aven-i-sverige-1.751487 [Accessed: 2019-03-25]

41

Kuypers, Jim A. (red.) (2009). Rhetorical criticism [Elektronisk resurs] perspectives in action. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books Lakoff, George (2004). Don't think of an elephant!: know your values and frame the debate : the essential guide for progressives. White River Junction, Vt.: Chelsea Green Pub. Co. Lockwood, M., 2011. Does the framing of climate policies make a difference to public support? Evidence from UK marginal constituencies. Climate Policy, 11(4), pp.1097–1112. Mack, P. (2017). Rhetoric's Questions, Reading and Interpretation. Cham: Springer International Publishing Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C. and Leiserowitz, A. (2008). Communication and Marketing As Climate Change–Intervention Assets. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(5), pp.488-500. Marshall, G., 2015. Don't even think about it: why our brains are wired to ignore climate change. New York: Bloomsbury McCright, A. and Dunlap, R. (2000). Challenging Global Warming as a Social Problem: An Analysis of the Conservative Movement's Counter-Claims. Social Problems, 47(4), pp.499-522. McCright, A. and Dunlap, R. (2010). Anti-reflexivity. The American Conservative Movement’s Success in Undermining Climate Science and Policy. Theory, Culture & Society. Vol. 27(2–3): 100–133 DOI: 10.1177/0263276409356001 McCright, A. and Dunlap, R. (2011). Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States. Global Environmental Change, 21(4), pp.1163-1172. McCright, A.M. et al., 2016. Examining the Effectiveness of Climate Change Frames in the Face of a Climate Change Denial Counter-Frame. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8(1), pp.76–97. McCright, A., Dunlap, M. & Xiao, R., 2013. Perceived scientific agreement and support for government action on climate change in the USA. Climatic Change, 119(2), pp.511–518. Medimorec, S. & Pennycook, G., 2015. The language of denial: text analysis reveals differences in language use between climate change proponents and skeptics. Climatic Change, 133(4), pp.597–605. Meyer, D.S. & Staggenborg, S., 1996. Movements, Countermovements, and the Structure of Political Opportunity. American Journal of Sociology, 101(6), pp.1628–1660.

42

NASA, North American Space Association. Holly Shaftel (ed). Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming. (2019). Available on: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/. [Accessed: 2018-09-20]. Nelson, T., Oxley, E. & Clawson, Z., 1997. Toward a Psychology of Framing Effects. Political Behavior, 19(3), pp.221–246. Nisbet, M.C., 2009. Communicating Climate Change: Why Frames Matter for Public Engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 51(2), pp.12–23. Oreskes, N., 2004. The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Science, 306(5702), p.1686. Oreskes, N. & Conway, Erik M., 2012. Merchants of doubt: how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Pbk. ed. London: Bloomsbury. Pan, Z. & Kosicki, G. ,1993. Framing Analysis: An Approach to News Discourse. Political Communication, Volume 10, pp. 55-75. DOI: 10.1080/10584609.1993.9962963 Piltz, R. 2008. ‘The Denial Machine’, Index on Censorship, 37(4), pp. 72–81. DOI: 10.1080/03064220802561366. Plehwe, D., 2014. Think tank networks and the knowledge–interest nexus: the case of climate change. Critical Policy Studies, 8(1), pp.101–115. Poortinga, W., Spence, A., Whitmarsh, L., Capstick, S. and Pidgeon, N. (2011). Uncertain climate: An investigation into public scepticism about anthropogenic climate change. Global Environmental Change, 21(3), pp.1015-1024. Priest, Susanna. (2016). Communicating climate change: the path forward. London: Springer nature. Rahmstorf, S. (2004) The Climate Sceptics. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam. Available on: http://www.pikpotsdam.de/∼stefan/Publications/Other/rahmstorf_climate_sceptics_2004.pdf [Accessed: 2019-02-12] Ranney, M.A. & Clark, D., 2016. Climate Change Conceptual Change: Scientific Information Can Transform Attitudes. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8(1), pp.49–75. Rebich-Hespanha, S. et al., 2014. Image Themes and Frames in US Print News Stories about Climate Change. Environmental Communication, 9(4), pp.1–29.

43

Rosenthal, M. 2018-12-11. The United States isn’t the only country downplaying climate change. Washington Post. Available on: https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/12/11/united-states-isnt-only-country-downplaying-climate-change/?utm_term=.96f6c64b2773 [Accessed: 2019-04-18] Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles: Sage SkepticalScience, 2019. John Cook.

a) Climate Misinformation by Source: John Christy. Available on: https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_John_Christy.htm. [Accessed: 2018-05-27]

b) Climate Misinformation by Source: Roy Spencer. Availble on: https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm. [Accessed: 2018-05-27]

Schäfer, M. S; O’Neill, S. (2017). Frame Analysis in Climate Change Communication: Approaches for Assessing Journalists’ Minds, Online Communication and Media Portrayals. In: Nisbet, Matthew; Ho, Shirley; Markowitz, Ezra; O’Neill, Saffron; Schäfer, Mike S; Thaker, Jagadish. Oxford Encyclopedia of Climate Change Communication. New York: Oxford University Press, n/a. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.48 Scholte, S., Vasileiadou, E. and Petersen, A. (2012). Opening Up the Societal Debate on Climate Engineering: How Newspaper Frames are Changing. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 10(1), pp.1–16. Shehata, A. & Hopmann, D.N., 2012. Framing climate change. Journalism Studies, 13(2), pp.175–192. Trumbo, C. (1996) ‘Constructing climate change: claims and frames in US news coverage of an environmental issue’, Public Understanding of Science, 5(3), pp. 269–283. doi: 10.1088/0963-6625/5/3/006. Vaughan, A. & Adam, D., 2009. Copenhagen climate deal: Spectacular failure - or a few important steps? The Guardian. 2009-12-22. Available on: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-deal-expert-view. [Accessed: 2019-05-27] Valkenburg, P. M. & Semetko, H. A., 2000. Framing European Politics: A Content Analysis of Press and Television News. Journal of Communication, 50(2), pp.93–109. Van Rensburg, W. & Head, B.W., 2017. Climate Change Sceptical Frames: The Case of Seven Australian Sceptics. Australian Journal of Politics & History, 63(1), pp.112–128. Washington, Haydn (2011). Climate change denial: heads in the sand. London: Earthscan

44

Watson, C., 2011. Notes on the Variety and Uses of Satire, Sarcasm and Irony in Social Research, with Some Observations on Vices and Follies in the Academy. Power and Education, 3(2), pp.139–149. Weber, E. U. & Stern, P. C., 2011. Public Understanding of Climate Change in the United States. American Psychologist, 66(4), pp.315–328. Wei, L., 2009. Filter Blogs vs. Personal Journals: Understanding the Knowledge Production Gap on the Internet. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(3), pp.532–558. Whitmarsh, L. (2011). Scepticism and uncertainty about climate change: Dimensions, determinants and change over time. Global Environmental Change, 21(2), pp.690-700.

45

APPENDIX A

The frames used in the analysis of the blog posts have been compiled from previous research.

Frame Description Source

Underm

ine mainstream

climate science

The evidentiary basis of global warming is weak and even wrong. McCright & Dunlap 2000

The scientific evidence for global warming is highly uncertain. Mainstream climate research is "junk" science. Questioning the personal motives and integrity of scientists.

Holtcamp 2012 Representing mainstream science as based on some particular philosophical or religious belief. Scientific and technical uncertainty

Nisbet 2009 A matter of expert understanding or consensus; a debate over what is known versus unknown; or peer-reviewed, confirmed knowledge versus hype or alarmism. Denial of authenticity of environmental problems

Jaques, Dunlap,

Freeman 2008

Especially problems concerning loss of biodiversity and threats to ecological stability are denied. Rejection of environmental science Environmental protection seen as illegitimate. Builds on the previous one and leads to claims of economic, societal and ecological problems to be prioritized instead.

Benefits

GW would be beneficial if it were to occur.

McCright & Dunlap 2000

- Global warming would improve our quality of life. - Global warming would improve our health. - Global warming would improve our agriculture

Policy implications /

economic

GW policies would do more harm than good.

McCright & Dunlap 2000

- Proposed action would harm the national economy. - Proposed action would weaken national security. - Proposed action would threaten national sovereignty. - Proposed action would actually harm the environment. Economic consequences frame (putting economic value on a problem places it in a wider context, also in time)

Valkenburg & Semetko

(2000) (also - Is there a mention of (financial) losses or gains now or in the future? - Is there a mention of the costs/degree of expense involved?

46

- Is there a reference to (economic) consequences of pursuing or not pursuing a course of action?

used in Dirix & Gelders)

Pragmatic, tangible and sensible policy

van Rensburg 2017

- Prefer policies that are modest rather than grandiose, meet the tests of cost/benefit, avoid complex admin, crafted to prevailing circumstances The preservation of economic stability - Concern about the cost implications of existing and proposed climate policies, including impacts on the poor Adaptation as a response blueprint - Adaptation rather than expensive emissions reduction (fits naturally within the sceptic logic on natural variability of climate, beyond human control). Economic development and competitiveness

Nisbet 2009

- An economic investment; market benefit or risk; or a point of local, national, or global competitiveness. Pandora’s box /Frankenstein’s monster/runaway science - A need for precaution or action in face of possible catastrophe and out-of-control consequences; or alternatively as fatalism, where there is no way to avoid the consequences or chosen path.

Anti-regulation anti corporate liability

Jaques, Dunlap,

Freeman 2008

Not in and of itself a part of skepticism but a natural consequence of the previous themes. Based on low prioritization of environmental problems. Protection of capitalist wealth. Environmental action threatens Western progress The “fantastic story of mankind” is reduced by environmental action. Defending modernity and progress. Supports current distribution of wealth between North/south.

Conspiratorial

The evidentiary basis of global warming is weak and even wrong

McCright & Dunlap 2000

The IPCC intentionally altered its reports to create a "scientific consensus" on GW GW is a myth or scare tactic produced/perpetuated by environmentalists and bureaucrats Global warming is merely a political tool of the Clinton Administration.

Conspiracy theories

Diethelm & McKee 2009 +

Washington 2011

Rejection of scientific literature - Claims of corruption of the authors of scientific literature commong. E.g. political agendas shadowing the real truth, causing exaggeration and fabrication of problems. Disproportionate claims of cc.

Jaques, Dunlap,

Freeman 2008

47

Ow

n scientific conception

Reliance on fake experts

Diethelm & McKee 2009

Selectivity in picking papers that in isolation supports their claims Impossible expectations of what research can deliver Misrepresentation and outright logical fallacies Literal denial that rejects the facts

Cohen 2001 Interpretive denial that accepts them but makes a different interpretation Implicatory denial that opposes the psychological, political or moral implications that conventionally follow from them Morality & ethics; A matter of right or wrong; or of respect or disrespect for limits, thresholds, or boundaries.

Nisbet 2009

Fake experts Washington 2011 (inspired by Diethelm & McKee 2009)

Impossible expectations Misrepresentations and logical fallacies

Cherry-picking

Responsibility

Attribution of responsibility (reveals whom the writer considers responsible)

Valkenburg & Semetko

(2000) (also used in Dirix & Gelders)

- Does the story suggest that some level of government has the ability to alleviate the problem? - Does the story suggest that some level of government is responsible for the issue/problem? - Does the story suggest solution(s) to the problem/issue? - Does the story suggest that an individual (or group of people in society) is responsible for the issue/problem? - Does the story suggest that the problem requires urgent action? Balanced global responsibilities

Van Rensburg 2017

Coordinated global effort that accurately reflects Australia’s share of global emissions Public accountability & governance

Nisbet 2009 Research or policy either in the public interest or serving special interests, emphasizing issues of control, transparency, participation, responsiveness, or ownership; or debate over proper use of science and expertise in decision making (“politicization”).

48

APPENDIX B The meta data from the blog posts chosen is available below in Swedish.

METADATA BLOGGINLÄGG NR Titel Datum Mapp Taggar Kommen-

tarer Övrigt Författare

Inlägg 1 Miljöpartiet snart Sveriges största parti?

2007-05-10 Allmänt Allmänt 1

Maggie

Inlägg 2 Klimathotet är kampanj och propaganda

2007-05-22 Allmänt Allmänt 8

Maggie/ Inga dogmer

Inlägg 3 Hur man gör en höna av ett ägg

2008-03-25 Allmänt Antarktis, antarktiska halvön, global uppvärmning, wilkins ice shelf 17 Bild Maggie

Inlägg 4 Ett par syrliga kommentarer 2009-12-15 Allmänt Atlanten, haven blir surare, havsförsurning, koldioxid, kolsyra, Östersjön, pH-värde, Stilla havet 98 Bild Maggie

Inlägg 5 I Poznan inget nytt 2008-12-06 Allmänt FN, Fredrik Reinfeldt, Greenpeace, klimatdemonstration, klimathotet, klimathysteri, klimatmöte, Klimatpolitik, kolkraft, Poznan

6 Bilder Maggie

Inlägg 6 Valuta för pengarna 2008-07-03 Allmänt Allmänt, global uppvärmning, KI, kilometerskatt, klimatberedningen, Klimatpolitik, koldioxid, utvecklingsländer, växthusgaser

2

Maggie

Inlägg 7 Förnuftigt av Fred Goldberg 2008-07-21 Allmänt Fred Goldberg, klimatbluffen, klimatdebatt, klimatförändring, Stockholmsinitiativet, Tällberg 69

Maggie

Inlägg 8 Al Gores senila demokrati 2008-04-10 Allmänt Al Gore, demokrati, global uppvärmning, ipcc, klimathotet, koldioxid 39

Maggie

Inlägg 9 Klimatförändring i reklamens värld

2008-09-01 Allmänt global cooling, global warming, klimatbluffen, klimatförändring, koldioxid, reklam, reklamkampanj, WWF

4 Bilder Maggie

Inlägg 10 A real White Christmas 2008-12-24 Allmänt Allmänt, global cooling, Kanada, klimatbluffen, klimatförändring, kyla, temperaturer, USA 84 Bild Maggie

Inlägg 11 Årets julklapp för de små? 2008-12-09 Allmänt barnböcker, barnbok, bokrecension, julklappsförslag, klimat för barn, klimatbluffen, klimathotet, klimatundervisning, klimatutbildning, Lennart Hellsing, satir, Welams vädermödor

54 Bild Maggie

Inlägg 12 Klimatforum 2008 2008-11-27 Allmänt Anderas Carlgren, klimatbluffen, klimatdebatten, klimatforum, Klimatpolitik, koldioxid, naturvårdsverket 39 Bilder Maggie

Inlägg 13 Nya plågor följer i klimatförändringens spår

2008-06-13 Allmänt chikungunya, färsting, global uppvärmning, klimatbluffen, klimatförändring, myggor, skeptiker, tbe, tropiska sjukdomar, vaccin

5 Bild Maggie

Inlägg 14 Klimatneutralt leveranssätt 2008-05-28 Allmänt AdLibris, Allmänt, global uppvärmning, klimatbluffen, klimathotet, klimatneutralt, koldioxid, miljöväniga transporter, utsläpp

35 Bild Maggie

Inlägg 15 Nytt i ordlistan: klimatsalong 2008-09-03 Allmänt existentiell psykoterapi, global uppvärmning, Jan Aronsson, klimatbluffen, klimatdebatt, klimatförändring, klimatsalong, Naturskyddsföreningen, Niclas Hällström

6

Maggie

49

Inlägg 16 Klimathotet finns överallt 2008-11-16 Allmänt alarmism, Arktis, Barolo, Danmark, förnekare, isbjörnar, klimatdebatten, klimatresa, klimatsmart, koldioxid, Köpenhamn, rödvin, tåg

7 Bilder Maggie

Inlägg 17 Ännu mera fritt prat 2009-08-01 Allmänt N/A 194

Maggie

Inlägg 18 Åh nej! 2009-08-22 Debatt, klimatpolitik, Klimatvetenskap

AGW, filosofi, Folke Tersman, försiktighetsprincipen, ipcc, klimat, klimatskeptiker, rädda klimatet 67

Maggie

Inlägg 19 Ransonera flygresor 2009-02-10 Allmänt begränsa flygtrafiken, Gordon Bown, klimathysteri, koldioxidutsläpp, ransonera flygresor 3

Maggie

Inlägg 20 Humor i juletider 2009-12-21 Klimathumor Al Gore, humor, isbjörnar, klimat 44 Bild Maggie

Inlägg 21 Detta händer (inte) på solen 2009-02-23 Allmänt Maunder minimum, solaktivitet, solcykel 23, solcykel 24, solfläckar 21 Bild Maggie

Inlägg 22 Ryssland: Inte utan USA och Kina

2009-09-14 Debatt, klimatpolitik

Kina, klimat, Klimatpolitik, koldioxid, Köpenhamn, minska utsläpp, Putin, Ryssland, utsläpp 18

Maggie

Inlägg 23 Ingemar Nordin i SvD Brännpunkt

2009-11-10 Debatt, klimatpolitik

FN:s klimatpanel, Ingemar Nordin, ipcc, klimatdebatt, klimatforskare, Köpenhamn, vetenskap 35

Maggie

Inlägg 24 Korallreven är dödsdömda 2009-09-08 Debatt, klimatpolitik, Klimat-vetenskap, Miljö

Andreas Carlgren, ekosystem, forskningen visar, global uppvärmning, klimat, koldioxid, korallblekning, korallrev, Strömstad

34

Maggie

Inlägg 25 BT följer upp riksdagsseminariet

2009-07-08 Allmänt Bob Carter, Borås Tidning, Erland Källen, global uppvärmning, ipcc, Jan Ericson, klimat, klimatseminarium, Roy Spencer, skeptiker

5

Maggie

Inlägg 26 För klimatvänliga webbplatser

2009-04-25 Allmänt klimatsmart, klimatvänlig, vindkraft, webbhotell 7 Bild Maggie

Inlägg 27 Lars Bern analyserar Köpenhamn och klimatåret 2009

2009-12-28 Debatt, klimatpolitik

Indien, Kina, klimat, Köpenhamn, Lars Bern, utvecklingsländer 38

Maggie

Inlägg 28 Vadå färre skeptiker? 2009-10-26 Allmänt, Debatt, Klimatpolitik, Klimatvetenskap

AGW, global uppvärmning, klimat, klimatkatastrof, opinion, opinionsundersökning, skeptiker, temperatur 4

Maggie

Inlägg 29 Stockholmsinitiativet ryter till 2009-11-24 Debatt, klimatpolitik

Fredrik Reinfeldt, Klimatpolitik, klimatskeptiker, öppet brev, presskonferens, skeptiker, Stockholmsinitiativet, upprop

89

Maggie

Inlägg 30 Lyssna på Gomorron Sverige 2009-07-10 Debatt, klimatpolitik

Elisabet Höglund, G8, klimat, klimathotet, Klimatpolitik, malaria, massbilism, miljöhot, Thomas Idergard 38 Bild / länk

Maggie

Inlägg 31 Sida förespråkar klimatanpassning

2009-01-21 Allmänt Dagens Industri, klimatanpassning, klimatdebatt, klimatseminarium, näringslivet, naturkatastrofer, Sida 16 Bild Maggie

Inlägg 32 Missa inte FN:s miss 2009-09-28 Debatt, klimatvetenskap

FN, Graf, Hanno, miss, Wikipedia 31

Maggie

Inlägg 33 Dagens länkar 2009-05-16 Allmänt AGW, global warming, klimat, klimatdebatt, Länkar, skeptiker 0

Maggie

Inlägg 34 Pär på korståg 2009-04-24 Allmänt global warming, klimatbluffen, klimatföredrag, klimathot, klimatshow, koldioxidbantare, Pär Holmgren, skeptiker, växthusgaser

6

Maggie

Inlägg 35 Fem i tolv och tiden går 2009-10-18 Allmänt, Debatt, Klimatpolitik

klimat, klimat & konsekvens, klimatförändring, propaganda, rädda jorden, röda korset, skeptiker, utställning

6

Maggie

50

Inlägg 36 Idag börjar Klimatduellen 2009-12-07 Debatt, klimatpolitik

Aftonbladet, Anders Emretsson, COP15, klimatduellen, klimathot, Köpenhamn, Maggie Thauersköld Crusell

3 Bild Maggie

Inlägg 37 Norrmän är värst 2009-10-07 Allmänt, Debatt, Klimatpolitik

AGW, Dansk folkeparti, Fremskrittspartiet, Frp, klimatförändring, klimatfrågan, Klimatpolitik, naturligt fenomen, skeptiker, Sverigedemokraterna

37 Bild Maggie

Inlägg 38 Glöm det där med tillväxt 2009-09-11 Debatt, klimatpolitik

BNP, global uppvärmning, Kina, klimat, koldioxid, Nicholas Stern, tillväxt, utsläpp 27

Maggie

Inlägg 39 Dagens länkar 2009-06-08 Allmänt AGW, global warming, klimat, klimatdebatt, Länkar, skeptiker 3

Maggie

Inlägg 40 Göteborgs stad beskattar flygresor

2009-11-04 Allmänt, Klimatpolitik

cykelparkering, Göteborg, klimatkompensera, Klimatpolitik, koldioxid, självändamål, skatt 22

Maggie

Inlägg 41 Ofriserade tankar 2009-07-19 Debatt, klimatpolitik, Klimatvetenskap

AGW, alarmism, CO2, extremväder, förnekare, global temperatur, globalisering, klimat, klimathot, koldioxid, Lilla istiden, miljörörelsen, oväder, skeptiker, växthusgaser

334

Maggie

Inlägg 42 Idag: Timbro och hotet mot demokratin

2010-01-21 Debatt, klimatpolitik

demokrati, klimatdebatt, klimatkot, klimatpolitik, Maria Wetterstrand, Roland Poirer Martinsson, Stefan Fölster, Timbro

27 Bild Maggie

Inlägg 43 År 2010 – nya debatter – nya forum – nytt skoj

2010-01-11 Allmänt Birger, Jonny Fagerström, Karin Bojs, Newsmill, Stockolmsinitiativet 46 Bild Jonny Fagerström

Inlägg 44 Världens motor hackar 2010-09-12 Allmänt, Klimatpolitik

N/A 87 Bild Ingemar Nordin

Inlägg 45 Klimatseminarium i Riksdagen 24.3 2010

2010-03-25 Allmänt N/A 72 Bild Peter Stilbs

Inlägg 46 Gästartikel: Jörgen Overgaard, Australien

2010-02-06 Allmänt aerosoler, Australien, black carbon, ipcc, Jörgen Overgaard, klimat, koldioxid, miljö, sulfater 95

Maggie/Jörgen Övergaard

Inlägg 47 Har vi passerat vår storhetstid?

2010-10-31 klimathumor klimathumor, klimatkatastrof 4 Bild Maggie

Inlägg 48 Repent all ye evil who email too much

2010-10-26 Allmänt, Klimathumor

e-post, email, klimatkompensera, klimatsmart, koldioxidavtryck 33 Bild Maggie

Inlägg 49 Det stormar, men bara kring IPCC

2010-02-28 Allmänt, Debatt AGW, Al Gore, Amazonas, global uppvärmning, Himalaya, havsnivån, ipcc, klimathot, stormar 25 Bild Maggie

Inlägg 50 IPCC:s sammanfattning stämmer inte med rapporten

2010-10-22 Klimatvetenskap N/A 28 Bild Ingemar Nordin

Inlägg 51 Stämmer modellerna? 2010-07-18 Klimatvetenskap N/A 126 Bild Ingemar Nordin

Inlägg 52 Matpriserna stiger katastrofalt!

2010-12-06 Allmänt Gerald Nelson, klimatfrändring, livsmedelspriser, svält, undernäring 61

Maggie

Inlägg 53 Klimatmöte på G 2010-05-26 Allmänt, Klimatpolitik

Bonn, Copenhagen Accord, ipcc, klimatmöte, klimatöverläggningar, Kyoto-protokollet 21 Bild Maggie

Inlägg 54 Finansiärer backar efter 10:10:s blodiga massaker

2010-10-03 Allmänt, Debatt N/A 135 Bild Ingemar Nordin

Inlägg 55 Ett riktigt kalkoninlägg 2010-01-22 Allmänt global temperatur, global uppvärmning, klimatalarmism, klimathot, skeptiker, varmaste decenniet 3 Bild Maggie

Inlägg 56 Manfall i Mexico 2010-11-24 Allmänt antal deltagare i cancun, cancun, COP15, COP16, klimatmöte 76

Maggie

51

Inlägg 57 Biodrivmedel allt annat än bra för klimatet

2010-11-08 Allmänt, Debatt, Miljö

biobränslen, biodrivmedel, klimatförändring, koldioxidutsläpp, matbrist, miljökatastrof 23

Maggie

Inlägg 58 Mera vindkraftsmygel 2010-04-13 Allmänt N/A 56 Bild Jonny Fagerström

Inlägg 59 Ingen kris för Himalaya 2010-03-08 Klimatvetenskap glaciärer, global uppvärmning, Himalaya, WITG 49 Bild Maggie

Inlägg 60 Naturvårdsverkets tältmöte i dag

2010-11-24 Allmänt N/A 30 Bild Peter Stilbs

Inlägg 61 LRF lär oss: Det är bioenergin som värmer Sverige

2011-05-17 Allmänt bioenergi, kärnkraft, LRF 36

Maggie

Inlägg 62 Time to Eat the Man 2011-09-07 Allmänt N/A 31 Bild Lena Krantz

Inlägg 63 Modeller igen – nu om Arktisk isbeläggning

2011-08-12 Allmänt N/A 22 Bild graf

Peter Stilbs

Inlägg 64 ”Publicera istället” 2011-08-21 Allmänt, Debatt, Klimatvetenskap

Klimatdebatten, klimatskeptiker, publicera studier 141 Bild C-G Ribbing

Inlägg 65 Smått makaber energieffektivisering

2011-02-04 Allmänt Energieffektivisering, krematorium, Redditch, simhall, spillvärme 25 Bild Maggie

Inlägg 66 Svante Arrhenius, IPCC och vattenångans förstärkande effekt

2011-09-09 Allmänt, Klimatvetenskap

koldioxid, Pehr Björnbom, växthuseffekten 20 Bilder grafer

Pehr Björnbom

Inlägg 67 Durban 2011 – Stockholm 1992

2011-11-30 Allmänt N/A 36 Bilder Peter Stilbs

Inlägg 68 Slussens förlorade heder 2011-06-19 Allmänt Lena Krantz, media 70 Bild graf

Lena Krantz

Inlägg 69 Åldrande satelliter hotar klimatforskningens framtid

2011-01-25 Allmänt, Klimatvetenskap

klimatförändring, klimatsatteliter, marktemperatur, NASA, NOAA, OCO, satellitdata 25

Maggie

Inlägg 70 Söndagsdikt 16/10 2011-10-16 Allmänt N/A 9

Lena Krantz

Inlägg 71 Andreas Carlgren kräver bättre väderprognoser

2011-03-05 Allmänt N/A 39

Peter Stilbs

Inlägg 72 Fler jordbävningar, tsunamis och vulkanutbrott

2011-03-13 Allmänt Naturkatastrofer 66

Ingemar Nordin

Inlägg 73 BEST – halmdocka eller intressant bidrag?

2011-10-24 Debatt, klimatvetenskap

BEST, halmdocka, muller 18 Bild ingemar Nordin

Inlägg 74 Mycket större än olja 2011-03-08 Allmänt energi, fossila bränslen, gas 27 Bilder ingemar Nordin

Inlägg 75 Närodlat från två horisonter 2011-08-24 Allmänt N/A 99 Bild Lena Krantz

Inlägg 76 Akasofu: Återhämtningen från Lilla Istiden pågår fortfarande

2011-01-02 Klimatvetenskap klimatforskning, naturlig uppvärmning 193 Bild graf

Ingemar Nordin

52

Inlägg 77 Kallt så in i bängen 2011-02-03 Klimatvetenskap global medeltemperatur, La Nina, Roy Spencer, temperatur januari 2011, UAH 135 Bild graf

Maggie

Inlägg 78 Publicering ingen garanti för kvalitet

2011-08-14 Allmänt bloggar, publikationer, vetenskapliga tidskrifter 9 Bilder grafer

ingemar Nordin

Inlägg 79 Ett isberg kommer lastat 2011-11-05 Allmänt N/A 88 Bild Lena Krantz

Inlägg 80 Peak Oil – onödig alarmism 2012-11-18 Energipolitik Kjell Aleklett, Marian Radetzki, Peak oil 247 Bilder ingemar Nordin

Inlägg 81 Före och efter Fukushima 2012-03-08 Allmänt N/A 26 Bild lena Krantz

Inlägg 82 UAH för okt 2012 2012-11-06 Allmänt N/A 18 Bild Lena Krantz

Inlägg 83 Miljöskadlig miljöomsorg 2012-02-22 Allmänt N 68 Bilder Peter Stilbs

Inlägg 84 Inte värre än man trott – snarare tvärtom

2012-08-02 Debatt, klimathumor, klimatpolitik

antarktis, grönland 39 Bilder jonny Fagerström

Inlägg 85 Vem är klimatvänligast? 2012-02-11 Allmänt N/A 79 Bilder Lars Jonsson

Inlägg 86 Fredag igen, och vi går mot ljusare tider

2012-02-17 Allmänt N/A 48 Bilder Peter Stilbs

Inlägg 87 Fyra grader? Nej, FEM grader varmare!

2012-12-04 Klimatvetenskap CICERO, Nature Climate Change, Tyndall Centre 79 Bilder ingemar Nordin

Inlägg 88 En föränderlig värld 2012-03-20 Allmänt N/A 52

Sten Kaijser

Inlägg 89 Kungliga vetenskapsakademien sågar vindkraften

2012-04-22 Debatt, energipolitik

KVA, vindkraft 76 Bild Jonny Fagerström

Inlägg 90 En historia om en framtid 2012-10-25 Allmänt N/A 37 Bild Lena Krantz

Inlägg 91 Det är den vite mannens fel 2012-05-24 Allmänt N/A 22 Bilder Lena Krantz

Inlägg 92 Lördagsfunderingar om luft och vatten

2012-08-18 Allmänt N/A 38

Sten Kaijser

Inlägg 93 Ny isbjörnsfilm 2012-07-05 Allmänt N/A 35 Filmer Lena Krantz

Inlägg 94 Lena på Newsmill 2012-03-20 Allmänt N/A 35 Bild Lena Krantz

Inlägg 95 Norfolkpolisens utredning av Climategate avslutas

2012-07-20 Allmänt, Debatt ClimateGate, Norfolkpolisen 26

Ingemar Nordin

Inlägg 96 Klotets film ”Kan den globala uppvärmningen bero på något annat?”

2013-11-07 Allmänt N/A 74 Bilder + film

Lena Krantz

Inlägg 97 På det femte smäller det! 2013-09-26 Allmänt N/A 60

Lena Krantz

Inlägg 98 NASA återupptäcker Solen 2013-01-09 Allmänt N/A 19 Länkar Peter Stilbs

53

Inlägg 99 Naturgas tränger undan kol i USA

2013-02-02 Allmänt, Energipolitik, Klimatpolitik

klimat, klimatpolitik, solkraft, USA, vindkraft 38 Bilder, grafer

jonny Fagerström

Inlägg 100 Klimatvisa i Valborgstider 2013-04-20 Allmänt N/A 63 Bilder C-G Ribbing

Inlägg 101 Till kossans försvar 2013-05-12 Klimatpolitik etanol, kor, vegetarianism 63

Ingemar Nordin

Inlägg 102 Vattenfall i botten 2013-07-24 Allmänt N/A 24

Lars Jonsson

Inlägg 103 Experter tror inte på någon klimatkatastrof

2014-04-15 Allmänt, Debatt Bette Midler, enkäter, geologer, meteorologer 83 Bild Ingemar Nordin

Inlägg 104 Intressanta kritiska synpunkter på Marcotts “superhockeyklubba”

2013-04-05 Allmänt, Klimatvetenskap

alarmism, hockeyklubba, Pehr Björnbom 138 Graf Pehr Björnbom

Inlägg 105 Verkligt mod 2013-09-08 Allmänt, Debatt mod, Ryan Arrington 39 Bild Ingemar Nordin

Inlägg 106 Panikångest på SvD? 2013-03-07 Allmänt N/A 95 Bild Peter Stilbs

Inlägg 107 Supernovor och jordens klimat

2013-01-15 Allmänt, granskade artiklar

kosmisk strålning 66 Graf c-G Ribbing

Inlägg 108 Betula nana 2013-06-07 Allmänt N/A 60 Grafer Lena Krantz

Inlägg 109 Samerna hotas av klimatförändringar ?

2013-08-10 Allmänt N/A 23

Lars Jonsson

Inlägg 110 Karbonater, koldioxid och havens pH

2014-05-12 Allmänt N/A 34 Bild Peter Stilbs

Inlägg 111 Isbjörn i repris plus lite nytt 2014-11-19 Allmänt N/A 8 Bilder Lars Jonsson

Inlägg 112 Putins hot höjer EUs intresse av fossila bränslen

2014-05-05 Energipolitik Eus energipolitik, putin, ukraina 18 Bild ingemar Nordin

Inlägg 113 Påverkar solfläckarna klimatet?

2014-11-18 Allmänt, Debatt, Klimat-vetenskap, moln

Solfläckar, TSI 70 Bilder grafer

C-G Ribbing

Inlägg 114 Ett lyssnartips till, för mer harmoni i livet

2014-09-08 Allmänt N/A 16

Peter Stilbs

Inlägg 115 Klimatvetenskapen är inte avgjord

2014-09-25 Allmänt N/A 70 Bild Lena Krantz

Inlägg 116 Är solen på väg mot ett Grand Minimum?

2014-08-10 Klimatvetenskap Grand minima, jack dini, solens aktivitet, usoskin 26 Bilder grafer

Ingemar Nordin

Inlägg 117 Anmälan till Granskningsnämnden

2014-11-28 Allmänt, Debatt granskningsnämnden, runda bordet 74 Bild Ingemar Nordin

Inlägg 118 Mer bevis för havens negativa återkoppling

2014-11-24 Allmänt N/A 18 Bilder grafer

Magnus Cederlöf

54

Inlägg 119 Hur svårt kan det vara? 2014-11-13 Allmänt N/A 36 Bild Lena Krantz

Inlägg 120 Från regionala till globala temperaturer

2014-02-11 Allmänt, Klimatvetenskap

global uppvärmning, temperaturmätningar 48 Bilder grafer

C-G Ribbing

Inlägg 121 Den framväxande data-skandalen

2015-02-01 Klimatvetenskap data-skandal, justerade temperaturer 90 Bild Ingemar Nordin

Inlägg 122 KVA, det röda teamet och demokratin

2015-04-29 Allmänt N/A 51 Bild Ann Löfving-Henriksson

Inlägg 123 Hur gör vi klimatet hetare? 2015-04-28 Allmänt N/A 30 Bild Lena Krantz

Inlägg 124 Öppen Tråd 2015-03-14 Allmänt Öppen tråd 182 Bild Redaktör Klimat

Inlägg 125 En obekväm resa – del 1 2015-04-16 Allmänt N/A 34 Bilder Jacob Nordangård

Inlägg 126 Debatt i Expressen om uppvämningspausen: Karlén hade rätt igen!

2015-01-09 Allmänt, Debatt Global uppvärmning, Wibjörn Karlen 222 Bilder grafer

Pehr Björnbom

Inlägg 127 Sagan om det vedervärdiga koldioxidmonstret

2015-03-19 klimathumor N/A 188 Bild Jacob Nordangård

Inlägg 128 Georeaktor – en djärv hypotes 2015-04-21 Allmänt, Debatt, Klimatvetenskap, temperatur

global uppvärmning, klimatförändring 66 Bilder grafer

C-G Ribbing

Inlägg 129 Hej, Göran Ahlgren 2015-08-10 Debatt Anders Bolling, Göran Ahlgren 47 Bild Ingemar Nordin

Inlägg 130 Så manipulerar media din åsikt om klimathotet

2016-01-24 Debatt, temperatur

NOAA, public service, RSS, UAH 77 Bilder grafer

ingemar Nordin

Inlägg 131 Öppen tråd 2016-10-08 Allmänt öppen tråd 80 Bild Redaktör Klimat

Inlägg 132 Öppen Tråd 2016-07-23 Allmänt öppen tråd 32 Bild redaktör Klimat

Inlägg 133 UAH oktober 2016 2016-11-01 Allmänt N/A 11 Bild tabell

Lena Krantz

Inlägg 134 Öppen Tråd 2016-07-09 Allmänt N/A 49 Bild Redaktör Klimat

Inlägg 135 Svante Axelsson blir klimat-tsar

2016-07-10 Energipolitik, klimatpolitik

klimat-tsar, Svante Axelsson 30 Bild ingemar Nordin

Inlägg 136 Öppen Tråd 2016-03-19 Allmänt Öppen tråd 44 Bild redaktör Klimat

Inlägg 137 Elbilen inte alltid miljövänlig 2016-10-11 Allmänt N/A 113 Bild, video

Per Welander

Inlägg 138 Öppen Tråd 2017-04-15 Allmänt Öppen tråd, påskafton 64 Bild Redaktör Klimat

55

Inlägg 139 Omställning av Den Stora Omställningen

2017-04-02 Energipolitik, klimatpolitik

N/A 64 Bilder, grafer

Ann Löfving-Henriksson

Inlägg 140 Varför ta reda på fakta, när det går att skylla på klimatförändringar?

2017-05-31 Debatt, klimatvetenskap, statistik

N/A 67 Bilder grafer

Lars Kamél

Inlägg 141 Öppen Tråd 2017-05-20 Allmänt Öppen tråd 141 Bild Redaktör Klimat

Inlägg 142 Eva Franchell, SMHI och det översvämmade Falsterbonäset

2017-08-27 Debatt, klimatvetenskap

Eva Franchell, Falsterbonäset, Peter Krabbe, SMHI 29 Bilder Ingemar Nordin

Inlägg 143 Klimatnyheter från Grönköping

2017-06-04 Allmänt Grönköping 13 Bild Ingemar Nordin

Inlägg 144 Öppen Tråd 2018-11-03 Allmänt Öppen tråd 37 Bild Redaktör Klimat

Inlägg 145 De nya Galapagosöarna och den biologiska utvecklingen

2018-05-14 Miljö Darwin, Mega(lo)städer, Menno Schilthuizen, utveckling 60 Bilder Ann Löfving-Henriksson

Inlägg 146 UAH januari 2018 2018-02-01 Allmänt N/A 16 Bild tabell

Lena Krantz

Inlägg 147 Författarna till IPCC AR6 utsedda

2018-05-30 Allmänt N/A 33 Bilder tabell

Per Welander

Inlägg 148 Kallt väder är skrämmande 2018-03-23 Allmänt N/A 29

Sten Kaijser

Inlägg 149 Gästinlägg: Forskningen och politiken

2018-02-16 Debatt CAGW, Dan Ahlmark, politik 31 Bild Ingemar Nordin/Dan Ahlmark

Inlägg 150 Mediokra Alfrida 2019-01-24 Allmänt, Klimatvetenskap

Stormar 48 Bilder Magnus Cederlöf

56