Dot Earth Blog: Can Comment Blitzes Influence Climate Views, or Policy?

Katherine Bagley has filed a thorough, interesting piece for InsideClimate News examining efforts by climate campaigners to build their online presence through more engagement in comments on articles or blog posts on global warming. One weapon in the new push is a Web site that automatically searches for comment opportunities.

The post is "Climate Hawks Go on Offense Against Skeptics, but Impact Uncertain." Here's one of the most interesting sections, on a new Web site, Reality Drop:

The Climate Reality Project, a group overseen by Al Gore, is trying to win over public opinion by getting people to spread accurate global warming science in the comment sections of news stories online, where the battle rages with particular ferocity.

For example, a recent CNN article titled "Global Warming Is Epic, Long-Term Study Says" [link] attracted nearly 12,600 comments. That's more than 50 times what articles published the same day on technology and environmental health received.

Last month, Gore's group launched a website that tips off users to climate news and encourages them to saturate readers' comments with scientific facts. For years, skeptics have filled comments with dismissive views of climate science to sow doubts about the consensus that fossil fuels are responsible for global warming—dominating that space, according to the group.

…An algorithm on the site generates a list of articles that have become overrun by skeptics or that contain misinformation. Scientific facts are displayed next to the articles, which people can cut and paste and "drop" into reader comments or social media accounts.

Since its launch, more than 150,000 people in 160 countries have visited the site—but the jury is still out on whether those who care about global warming will be motivated to participate. To encourage use, the program is set up like a game, with "players" racking up points for every article they comment on.

I'd say they've got their work cut out for them, given the head start they gave to full-time purveyors of climate doubt, led by Watts Up With That and Climate Depot.

But does it matter? I doubt it. The online climate wars — which seem so momentous to those deeply dug in on various fronts — are taking place on the sharp end of a needle buried in a haystack of other societal concerns. I posted two slides on Slideshare to make the point:

[10:41 p.m. | Update | A Washington Post story on new Gallup poll results pretty clearly shows the lack of salience of global warming for voters.]

Bagley touches on a recent study of the "nasty effect" of "uncivil" blog commentary on readers of articles about nanotechnology, conducted by a group including Dietram Scheufele of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He laments the heat around global warming and similar topics, telling her, "These issues are exactly where we need rational discourse, an unbiased exchange of ideas, and the evaluation of facts not colored by us yelling at each other."

To my eye, the good news in that study — in which survey subjects were given mock news articles with mock comments that were either combative or civil — was that the hotter comments mainly tended to further polarize readers who already had strong views on the subject at hand.

Bagley asked my views on this issue and quoted me in the piece, unavoidably in a truncated way. Here's the full text of my replies to her (with some e-mail shorthand fixed):

My comment section is full of debate every day and, absolutely, posts on climate are like fresh meat dumped on the Serengeti. As you may know I've tried various ways to moderate the comments — literally….

The rudeness ebbs and builds; sometimes I smack it down by rejecting comments at a heavier pace or yelling like a teacher at unruly students. It really feels like a classroom that way sometimes. Take a random walk through this busy string (272 comments, so just dip in) to get the idea.

As I've said here before, it's important to recognize that the vast majority of blog readers (at least on Dot Earth) never post a comment — and I'd guess also don't spend much time sifting them. (Scheufele's paper doesn't address this issue.)

Of course that doesn't mean it's not worth vetting comments and trying tactics that reward good behavior. One such tool here is "Your Dot" treatment for constructive, non-anonymous comments that are particularly engaging. (A fascinating comment on my piece on brutal dolphin-killing methods in Taiji, Japan, by Tom White of Redondo Beach, Calif., will get this treatment tomorrow.)

But back to climate. Bagley's article goes beyond covering blog wars. She also quotes the Drexel University sociologist Robert Brulle, once a frequent presence here, describing a forthcoming study he's done on the huge cash flow from industry and conservative tycoons in the money wars over climate and similar politicized issues. I'll be interested to see any analysis of the paper by Matthew Nisbet of American University, who charted the flow from environmental groups.