DOCSLIB.ORG

Discourses of Climate Delay

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Discourses of Climate Delay Global Sustainability Discourses of climate delay cambridge.org/sus William F. Lamb1,2 , Giulio Mattioli3, Sebastian Levi1,4,5, J. Timmons Roberts6, Stuart Capstick7, Felix Creutzig1,8 , Jan C. Minx1,2, Finn Müller-Hansen1,9, Trevor Culhane6 and Julia K. Steinberger2 Intelligence Briefing 1Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, Torgauer Straße 12–15, EUREF Campus 2 Cite this article: Lamb WF et al. (2020). #19, 10829 Berlin, Germany; School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK; Discourses of climate delay. Global 3Department of Transport Planning, Faculty of Planning, TU Dortmund University, August-Schmidt-Straße 10, Sustainability 3, e17, 1–5. https://doi.org/ 44227 Dortmund, Germany; 4Freie Universität Berlin, Kaiserswerther Str. 16–18, 14195 Berlin, Germany; 5Hertie 10.1017/sus.2020.13 School of Governance, Friedrichstraße 180, 10117 Berlin, Germany; 6Institute at Brown for Environment and Society, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912, USA; 7Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations and Received: 24 March 2020 Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK; 8Technical Revised: 6 June 2020 9 Accepted: 8 June 2020 University Berlin, Straße des 17. Junis 135, 10623 Berlin, Germany and Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Member of the Leibniz Association, PO Box 60 12 03, D-14412 Potsdam, Germany Keywords: climate delay; climate denial; counter- Non-technical summary movement; discourses ‘Discourses of climate delay’ pervade current debates on climate action. These discourses Author for correspondence: accept the existence of climate change, but justify inaction or inadequate efforts. In contem- Dr William F. Lamb, porary discussions on what actions should be taken, by whom and how fast, proponents of E-mail: [email protected] climate delay would argue for minimal action or action taken by others. They focus attention on the negative social effects of climate policies and raise doubt that mitigation is possible. Here, we outline the common features of climate delay discourses and provide a guide to iden- tifying them. Technical summary Through our collective observations as social scientists studying climate change, we describe 12 climate delay discourses and develop a typology based on their underlying logic. Delay dis- courses can be grouped into those that: (1) redirect responsibility; (2) push non-transforma- tive solutions; (3) emphasize the downsides of climate policies; or (4) surrender to climate change. These discourses are distinct from climate denialism, climate-impact scepticism and ad hominem attacks, but are often used in combination to erode public and political sup- port for climate policies. A deeper investigation of climate delay discourses is necessary in order to understand their prevalence and to develop inoculation strategies that protect the public from their intended effects. Our typology enables scientists, climate advocates and pol- icymakers to recognize and counter these arguments when they are used. We urge all propo- nents of climate action to address these common misrepresentations of the climate crisis and to better communicate the dramatic pace of global warming, the gravity of its impacts and the possibility of effective and just mitigation policies. Social media summary Discourses of climate delay: redirect responsibility, push non-transformative solutions, emphasize downsides, surrender. 1. Introduction As the public conversation on climate change evolves, so too does the sophistication and range of arguments used to downplay or discount the need for action (McKie, 2019; Norgaard, 2011). A mainstay of this counter-movement has been outright denial of the reality or © The Author(s), 2020. Published by human causation of climate change (Farrell et al., 2019), supplemented by climate-impact Cambridge University Press. This is an Open scepticism (Harvey et al., 2018) and ad hominem attacks on scientists and the scientific con- Access article, distributed under the terms of sensus (Oreskes & Conway, 2011). A fourth strategy has received relatively little attention to the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), date: policy-focused discourses that exploit contemporary discussions on what action should which permits unrestricted re-use, be taken, how fast, who bears responsibility and where costs and benefits should be allocated distribution, and reproduction in any medium, (Bohr, 2016; Jacques & Knox, 2016; McKie, 2019). We call these ‘climate delay’ discourses, provided the original work is properly cited. since they often lead to deadlock or a sense that there are intractable obstacles to taking action. Climate delay discourses comprise many separate strategies, some of which have already been identified, such as individualism (Maniates, 2001), technological optimism (Peeters et al., 2016), fossil fuel greenwashing (Sheehan, 2018) and appeals to social justice and eco- nomic costs (Bohr, 2016; Jacques & Knox, 2016). They have been examined in surveys and Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.35.76, on 23 Sep 2021 at 19:54:21, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.13 2 William F. Lamb et al. Fig. 1. A typology of climate delay discourses. community workshops (Bickerstaff & Walker, 2002; Norgaard, co-authors, and then we refine these categories by drawing from 2011), in media sources and advertisements (Bohr, 2016; a wide range of sources. These include a systematically collected Jacques & Knox, 2016; Peeters et al., 2016; Sheehan, 2018) and sample of written testimony (submitted to Massachusetts legisla- in lobbying activities and political discourses (Bache et al., ture on climate and clean energy legislation in the period 2015; Gillard, 2016; McKie, 2019), using methods such as content 2013–2018), as well as selected news articles and media content analysis (Bohr, 2016; Jacques & Knox, 2016), grounded theory on climate policies in Germany, the UK, Norway and the USA. (Bickerstaff & Walker, 2002) and the analysis of social deviance Refer to the Supplementary Materials for a more detailed explan- (McKie, 2019). Many delay arguments are documented in key ation of our methods and sources. works tracing the history of environmental counter-movements Climate delay discourses repeatedly occur across sources, actors in the USA, including the Merchants of Doubt, Deceit and and contexts. What features do they share? Based on the under- Denial, The Triumph of Doubt and others (Brulle & Aronczyk, lying logic they use to discourage climate action, we characterize 2019; Freudenburg et al., 2008; Markowitz & Rosner, 2003; discourses of delay as negations of at least one of four questions: Michaels, 2008, 2020; Oreskes & Conway, 2011). (1) Is it our responsibility to take actions? (2) Are transformative Our goal in this article is simply to identify an expansive – changes necessary? (3) Is it desirable to mitigate climate change, albeit not necessarily exhaustive – list of climate delay discourses. given the costs? (4) Is it still possible to mitigate climate change? In doing so, we follow similar efforts to compile common climate The varying positions to these fundamental questions allow us to denial claims and provide a reference point for countering misin- group discourses into four categories that ‘redirect responsibility’, formation (www.skepticalscience.com). Our secondary goal is to ‘push non-transformative solutions’, ‘emphasize the downsides’ of examine the common features and shared underlying logic of climate policy, or ‘surrender’ to climate change (see Figure 1). delay discourses. This allows us to condense them into a set of This typology assists in the identification of diverse discursive overarching strategies that can be more easily recognized and strategies and may suggest tailored responses to each. These ques- hence challenged. Our approach is deductive: we derive our initial tions also cut to some of the most contentious aspects of social list of discourses from an expert elicitation of the study and political change; they indicate that discourses of delay often Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.35.76, on 23 Sep 2021 at 19:54:21, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.13 Global Sustainability 3 contain partial truths and may be put forward in good faith. Yet An underlying concern in these narratives is the ‘free rider’ our focus here is to identify the features of these discourses, rather problem: unless all individuals, industries or countries undertake than to attribute underlying motives to those who use them. In emissions reductions, some will stand to benefit from the actions the absence of high-quality public deliberation, and in the of others. We see this more explicitly formulated in the ‘free rider’ hands of interest groups fighting against regulation, our concern excuse discourse, which claims that others will actively take is that discourses of delay will disorientate and discourage ambi- advantage of those who lead on climate change mitigation – tious climate action. This issue thus demands urgent attention “[I]f we stopped emitting altogether tomorrow, not only it and a new set of responses to facilitate a more robust public would have no impact but undoubtedly
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Online Russia, Today
    Online Russia, today. How is Russia Today framing the events of the Ukrainian crisis of 2013 and what this framing says about the Russian regime’s legitimation strategies? The case of the Russian-language online platform of RT Margarita Kurdalanova 24th of June 2016 Graduate School of Social Sciences Authoritarianism in a Global Age Adele Del Sordi Dr. Andrey Demidov This page intentionally left blank Word count: 14 886 1 Table of Contents Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 3 1.Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 4 2.Literature Review .................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Legitimacy and legitimation ............................................................................................. 5 2.2. Legitimation in authoritarian regimes ............................................................................. 7 2.3 Media and authoritarianism .............................................................................................. 9 2.4 Propaganda and information warfare ............................................................................. 11 3.Case study ............................................................................................................................. 13 3.1 The Russian-Ukrainian conflict of 2013 .......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Framing Environmental Movements: a Multidisciplinary Analysis of the Anti-Plastic Straw Movement
    Framing Environmental Movements: A Multidisciplinary Analysis of the Anti-Plastic Straw Movement MPP Professional Paper In Partial Fulfillment of the Master of Public Policy Degree Requirements The Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs The University of Minnesota Caroline Arkesteyn 5/1/2020 Peter Calow, Professor Mark Pedelty, Professor _______________________________ ________________________________________ Typed Name & Title, Paper Supervisor Typed Name & Title, Second Committee Member ` FRAMING ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENTS A Multidisciplinary Analysis of the Anti-Plastic Straw Movement Caroline Arkesteyn Humphrey School of Public Affairs | University of Minnesota Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2. Literature Review 2.1. The Public Policy Process 2.2. Social Movements Theory 2.3. Framing Theory 3. The Movement 3.1. The Environmental Issue 3.2. Spurring Event 3.3. Social Media Trajectory 3.4. Issue Framing 3.4.1. Frames Used by Supporters 3.4.2. Frames Used by Critics 3.4.3. Message and Participant Motivation 3.5. Industry Response 3.6. Policy Response 3.6.1. Seattle 3.6.2. California 3.6.3. New York City 3.6.4. United Kingdom 3.7. Critiques 4. Conclusions and Recommendations 4.1. Policy Recommendations 4.1.1. Investing in Recycling Technology and Infrastructure 4.1.2. Implementing a “Producer-Pays” Fee on Single-Use Plastics 4.1.3. Expanding Environmental Education 4.2. Communications Recommendations 4.2.1. Systems-Focused Language 4.2.2. Highlighting Agency 4.2.3. Social Media Communication and Agenda-Setting 5. Implications and Future Research 1 I. INTRODUCTION In the late months of 2017, a new viral message began circulating social media platforms.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Full Journal (PDF)
    SAPIR A JOURNAL OF JEWISH CONVERSATIONS THE ISSUE ON POWER ELISA SPUNGEN BILDNER & ROBERT BILDNER RUTH CALDERON · MONA CHAREN MARK DUBOWITZ · DORE GOLD FELICIA HERMAN · BENNY MORRIS MICHAEL OREN · ANSHEL PFEFFER THANE ROSENBAUM · JONATHAN D. SARNA MEIR SOLOVEICHIK · BRET STEPHENS JEFF SWARTZ · RUTH R. WISSE Volume Two Summer 2021 And they saw the God of Israel: Under His feet there was the likeness of a pavement of sapphire, like the very sky for purity. — Exodus 24: 10 SAPIR Bret Stephens EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Mark Charendoff PUBLISHER Ariella Saperstein ASSO CIATE PUBLISHER Felicia Herman MANAGING EDITOR Katherine Messenger DESIGNER & ILLUSTRATOR Sapir, a Journal of Jewish Conversations. ISSN 2767-1712. 2021, Volume 2. Published by Maimonides Fund. Copyright ©2021 by Maimonides Fund. No part of this journal may be reproduced in any form or by any means without the prior written consent of Maimonides Fund. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. WWW.SAPIRJOURNAL.ORG WWW.MAIMONIDESFUND.ORG CONTENTS 6 Publisher’s Note | Mark Charendoff 90 MICHAEL OREN Trial and Triage in Washington 8 BRET STEPHENS The Necessity of Jewish Power 98 MONA CHAREN Between Hostile and Crazy: Jews and the Two Parties Power in Jewish Text & History 106 MARK DUBOWITZ How to Use Antisemitism Against Antisemites 20 RUTH R. WISSE The Allure of Powerlessness Power in Culture & Philanthropy 34 RUTH CALDERON King David and the Messiness of Power 116 JEFF SWARTZ Philanthropy Is Not Enough 46 RABBI MEIR Y. SOLOVEICHIK The Power of the Mob in an Unforgiving Age 124 ELISA SPUNGEN BILDNER & ROBERT BILDNER Power and Ethics in Jewish Philanthropy 56 ANSHEL PFEFFER The Use and Abuse of Jewish Power 134 JONATHAN D.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change in the Era of Post-Truth
    09_ARBOLEDA_EDITEDPROOF_KS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/8/2018 2:50 PM Climate Change in the Era of Post- Truth INTRODUCTION In The Madhouse Effect: How Climate Change Denial is Threatening our Planet, Destroying our Politics, and Driving us Crazy,1 climate scientist Michael Mann joins with Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Tom Toles to take on climate change denialism. Mann, the Director of the Earth System Science Center at The Pennsylvania State University, augments his prose with cartoons from Toles, who normally draws for the editorial section of the Washington Post.2 Together, Mann and Toles set out to debunk the main arguments that special interest groups use to undermine climate change policy. The book begins with an introduction to the scientific method and its application to climate change science.3 It then describes the current and potential effects of climate change on everyday life.4 In its second half, the book transitions to the politics surrounding climate change in the United States.5 A major focus of the book is the “war on climate science,” the phrase Mann and Toles use to describe how the fossil fuel industry has created misinformation to discourage action on climate change.6 The Madhouse Effect was published in 2016, at a moment when the United States was choosing between Democratic and Republican presidential candidates whose climate change agendas differed wildly. The book’s publication failed to avert the election of President Donald Trump, a climate change denier who has referred to the phenomenon as a “hoax” created by China.7 Still, The Madhouse Effect presents a valuable depiction of the underground currents that influence DOI: https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38W669857 Copyright © 2018 Regents of the University of California 1.
    [Show full text]
  • FAKE NEWS!”: President Trump’S Campaign Against the Media on @Realdonaldtrump and Reactions to It on Twitter
    “FAKE NEWS!”: President Trump’s Campaign Against the Media on @realdonaldtrump and Reactions To It on Twitter A PEORIA Project White Paper Michael Cornfield GWU Graduate School of Political Management [email protected] April 10, 2019 This report was made possible by a generous grant from William Madway. SUMMARY: This white paper examines President Trump’s campaign to fan distrust of the news media (Fox News excepted) through his tweeting of the phrase “Fake News (Media).” The report identifies and illustrates eight delegitimation techniques found in the twenty-five most retweeted Trump tweets containing that phrase between January 1, 2017 and August 31, 2018. The report also looks at direct responses and public reactions to those tweets, as found respectively on the comment thread at @realdonaldtrump and in random samples (N = 2500) of US computer-based tweets containing the term on the days in that time period of his most retweeted “Fake News” tweets. Along with the high percentage of retweets built into this search, the sample exhibits techniques and patterns of response which are identified and illustrated. The main findings: ● The term “fake news” emerged in public usage in October 2016 to describe hoaxes, rumors, and false alarms, primarily in connection with the Trump-Clinton presidential contest and its electoral result. ● President-elect Trump adopted the term, intensified it into “Fake News,” and directed it at “Fake News Media” starting in December 2016-January 2017. 1 ● Subsequently, the term has been used on Twitter largely in relation to Trump tweets that deploy it. In other words, “Fake News” rarely appears on Twitter referring to something other than what Trump is tweeting about.
    [Show full text]
  • How Do Climate Change Skeptics Engage with Opposing Views?
    How do climate change skeptics engage with opposing views? Understanding mechanisms of social identity and cognitive dissonance in an online forum PREPRINT Lisa Oswald∗ Jonathan Bright Hertie School Oxford Internet Institute Friedrichstraße 180 University of Oxford 10117 Berlin, Germany 1 St Giles’, Oxford OX1 3JS, UK [email protected] [email protected] February 15, 2021 ABSTRACT Does engagement with opposing views help break down ideological ‘echo chambers’; or does it backfire and reinforce them? This question remains critical as academics, policymakers and activists grapple with the question of how to regulate political discussion on social media. In this study, we contribute to the debate by examining the impact of opposing views within a major climate change skeptic online community on ‘Reddit’. A large sample of posts (N = 3000) was manually coded as either dissonant or consonant which allowed the automated classification of the full dataset of more than 50,000 posts, with codes inferred from linked websites. We find that ideologically dissonant submissions act as a stimulant to activity in the community: they received more attention (comments) than consonant submissions, even though they received lower scores through up-voting and down-voting. Users who engaged with dissonant submissions were also more likely to return to the forum. Consistent with identity theory, confrontation with opposing views triggered activity in the forum, particularly among users that are highly engaged with the community. In light of the findings, theory of social identity and echo chambers is discussed and enhanced. Keywords Online community · climate change skepticism · reaction to opposition · dissonance · opinion polarisation · social identity · echo chamber arXiv:2102.06516v1 [cs.SI] 12 Feb 2021 Introduction Scientists worldwide consider climate change as one of the greatest challenges of our time (IPCC, 2015).
    [Show full text]
  • Media Coverage of International Climate Change Policy • Chandra Lal Pandey and Priya A
    The Media and the Major Emitters: Media Coverage of International Climate Change Policy • Chandra Lal Pandey and Priya A. Kurian* Abstract News media outlets are crucial for the dissemination of information on climate change issues, but the nature of the coverage varies across the world, depending on local geo- political and economic contexts. Despite extensive scholarship on media and climate change, less attention has been paid to comparing how climate change is reported by news media in developed and developing countries. This article undertakes a cross- national study of how elite newspapers in four major greenhouse gas emitting countries— the United States, the United Kingdom, China and India—frame coverage of climate change negotiations. We show that framing is similar by these newspapers in developing countries, but there are clear differences in framing in the developed world, and between the developed and developing countries. While an overwhelming majority of these news stories and the frames they deploy are pegged to the stance of domestic institutions in the developing countries, news frames from developed countries are more varied. Despite the overwhelming scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic cli- mate change and the threat it poses to the planet, international policy responses— most notably in the form of a global climate treaty—remain fragmented and inadequate. The on-going negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are marked by a fundamental dis- juncture between
    [Show full text]
  • SCIENCE and HEALTH MISINFORMATION in the DIGITAL AGE: How Does It Spread? Who Is Vulnerable? How Do We Fight It?
    SCIENCE AND HEALTH MISINFORMATION IN THE DIGITAL AGE: How does it spread? Who is vulnerable? How do we fight it? ERIC MERKLEY & PETER LOEWEN J U LY, 2021 ABOUT PPF Good Policy. Better Canada. The Public Policy Forum builds bridges among diverse participants in the policy-making process and gives them a platform to examine issues, offer new perspectives and feed fresh ideas into critical policy discussions. We believe good policy is critical to making a better Canada—a country that’s cohesive, prosperous and secure. We contribute by: . Conducting research on critical issues . Convening candid dialogues on research subjects . Recognizing exceptional leaders Our approach—called Inclusion to Conclusion—brings emerging and established voices to policy conversations, which informs conclusions that identify obstacles to success and pathways forward. PPF is an independent, non-partisan charity whose members are a diverse group of private, public and non-profit organizations. ppforum.ca @ppforumca © 2021, Public Policy Forum 1400 - 130 Albert Street Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1P 5G4 613.238.7858 ISBN: 978-1-77452-085-7 WITH THANKS TO OUR PARTNERS ABOUT THE AUTHORS ERIC MERKLEY Eric Merkley (PhD, UBC) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Toronto. He was the lead survey analyst of the Media Ecosystem Observatory, which studied the Canadian information ecosystem and public opinion during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Digital Democracy Project, which studied misinformation and public attitudes during the 2019 Canadian federal election. His research focuses on the link between political elite behaviour, the news media, and public opinion.
    [Show full text]
  • RESEARCH and REPORT by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and Echelon Insights for the Reporters Committee for Freedom for the Press and the Democracy Fund
    RESEARCH AND REPORT BY Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and Echelon Insights for the Reporters Committee for Freedom for the Press and the Democracy Fund PRESS FREEDOM FOR THE PEOPLE 1 Table of contents Foreword 2 Key Findings 4 Trust in National Media 5 Regaining Trust 7 Appendix A: Media Sources 21 Appendix B: Media Doubts and Facts 24 __________________________ ã2018 All Rights Reserved, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner PRESS FREEDOM FOR THE PEOPLE 2 Foreword By Jenn topper communications director, reporters committee for freedom of the press A robust free press is vital to an informed public. It’s with that in mind that we sought to understand the public’s perceptions of press freedom at a moment in time when trust in the press remains low, and when the president of the United States regularly deems members of the press “enemy of the people” and refers to entire news organizations as “fake news.” The research took on even more significance after the murder of four journalists and one sales assistant at the Capital Gazette in Annapolis, Maryland, by a gunman who had a long history of making threats against the newspaper. We learned, through a series of focus groups and a 2,000-voter survey, that there is a lack of urgency around the idea that press freedom is at risk here in the U.S. Press freedom advocates see an alarming confluence of threats to journalists and the news media, including harmful rhetoric emanating from ã2018 All Rights Reserved, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner PRESS FREEDOM FOR THE PEOPLE 3 government officials, investigations of unauthorized disclosures to the press, tighter restrictions on access to the White House and key agencies and officials, lawsuits targeted at crippling or bankrupting news outlets, all combined with increasing economic strain on newsrooms.
    [Show full text]
  • Science Denial As a Form of Pseudoscience
    Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 63 (2017) 39e47 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Studies in History and Philosophy of Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/shpsa Science denial as a form of pseudoscience Sven Ove Hansson Department of Philosophy and History, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Brinellvägen 32, 100 44 Stockholm, Sweden article info abstract Article history: Science denialism poses a serious threat to human health and the long-term sustainability of human Received 14 September 2016 civilization. Although it has recently been rather extensively discussed, this discussion has rarely been Received in revised form connected to the extensive literature on pseudoscience and the science-pseudoscience demarcation. This 3 March 2017 contribution argues that science denialism should be seen as one of the two major forms of pseudo- Available online 31 May 2017 science, alongside of pseudotheory promotion. A detailed comparison is made between three prominent forms of science denialism, namely relativity theory denialism, evolution denialism, and climate science Keywords: denialism. Several characteristics are identified that distinguish science denialism from other forms of Science denialism Pseudoscience pseudoscience, in particular its persistent fabrication of fake controversies, the extraordinary male Climate science denialism dominance among its activists, and its strong connection with various forms of right-wing politics. It is Creationism argued that the scientific response to science denialism has to be conceived with these characteristics in Relativity theory denial mind. In particular, it is important to expose the fabricated fake controversies for what they are and to reveal how science denialists consistently use deviant criteria of assent to distort the scientific process.
    [Show full text]
  • BPGC at Semeval-2020 Task 11: Propaganda Detection in News Articles with Multi-Granularity Knowledge Sharing and Linguistic Features Based Ensemble Learning
    BPGC at SemEval-2020 Task 11: Propaganda Detection in News Articles with Multi-Granularity Knowledge Sharing and Linguistic Features based Ensemble Learning Rajaswa Patil1 and Somesh Singh2 and Swati Agarwal2 1Department of Electrical & Electronics Engineering 2Department of Computer Science & Information Systems BITS Pilani K. K. Birla Goa Campus, India ff20170334, f20180175, [email protected] Abstract Propaganda spreads the ideology and beliefs of like-minded people, brainwashing their audiences, and sometimes leading to violence. SemEval 2020 Task-11 aims to design automated systems for news propaganda detection. Task-11 consists of two sub-tasks, namely, Span Identification - given any news article, the system tags those specific fragments which contain at least one propaganda technique and Technique Classification - correctly classify a given propagandist statement amongst 14 propaganda techniques. For sub-task 1, we use contextual embeddings extracted from pre-trained transformer models to represent the text data at various granularities and propose a multi-granularity knowledge sharing approach. For sub-task 2, we use an ensemble of BERT and logistic regression classifiers with linguistic features. Our results reveal that the linguistic features are the reliable indicators for covering minority classes in a highly imbalanced dataset. 1 Introduction Propaganda is biased information that deliberately propagates a particular ideology or political orientation (Aggarwal and Sadana, 2019). Propaganda aims to influence the public’s mentality and emotions, targeting their reciprocation due to their personal beliefs (Jowett and O’donnell, 2018). News propaganda is a sub-type of propaganda that manipulates lies, semi-truths, and rumors in the disguise of credible news (Bakir et al., 2019).
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Validation of a Novel Climate Change Denial Measure Using Item
    1 Validation of a Novel Climate Change Denial Measure Using Item Response Theory Mr. George Lorama*,, Dr. Mathew Linga, Mr. Andrew Heada, Dr. Edward J.R. Clarkeb a Deakin University, Geelong, Australia, Misinformation Lab, School of Psychology b Federation University, Mount Helen, Australia, School of Health and Life Sciences * Corresponding Author, Misinformation Lab, Deakin University, Locked Bag 20001, Geelong VIC 3220, Australia. Email address: [email protected] Declarations of Interest: All authors declare that no conflict of interest exists. Acknowledgements: This work was supported by Deakin University (4th Year Student Research Funding; 4th Year Publication Award). 2 Abstract Climate change denial persists despite overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue. However, the rates of denial reported in the literature are inconsistent, potentially as a function of ad hoc measurement of denial. This further impacts on interpretability and integration of research. This study aims to create a standardised measure of climate change denial using Item Response Theory (IRT). The measure was created by pooling items from existing denial measures, and was administered to a U.S. sample recruited using Amazon MTurk (N = 206). Participants responded to the prototype measure as well as being measured on a number of constructs that have been shown to correlate with climate change denial (authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, mistrust in scientists, and conspiracist beliefs). Item characteristics were calculated using a 2-parameter IRT model. After screening out poorly discriminating and redundant items, the scale contained eight items. Discrimination indices were high, ranging from 2.254 to 30.839, but item difficulties ranged from 0.437 to 1.167, capturing a relatively narrow band of climate change denial.
    [Show full text]