Advocacy in the tail: Exploring the implications of ‘climategate’ for science journalism and public debate in the digital age

Abstract

This article explores the evolving practices of science journalism and public debate in the digital age. The vehicle for this study is the release of digitally stored email correspondence, data and documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK in the weeks immediately prior to the United Nations Copenhagen Summit (COP-15) in December 2009. Described using the journalistic shorthand of ‘climategate’, and initially promoted through socio-technical networks of bloggers, this episode became a global news story and the subject of several formal reviews. ‘Climategate’ illustrates that media-literate critics of anthropogenic explanations of climate change used digital tools to support their cause, making visible selected, newsworthy aspects of scientific information and the practices of scientists. In conclusion, I argue that ‘climategate’ may have profound implications for the production and distribution of science news, and how climate science is represented and debated in the digitally mediated public sphere.

Keywords

blogging climate science consensus and controversy digital age news media fourth estate openness and transparency scientific governance science journalism

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allan

(2006) Online News – Journalism and the Internet. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Allan

(2009) Making science newsworthy: Exploring the conventions of science journalism. In: Holliman

Whitelegg

Scanlon

Smidt

Thomas

(eds) Investigating Science Communication in the Information Age: Implications for Public Engagement and Popular Media. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 149–165.

Allgaier

Holliman

(2006) The emergence of the controversy around the theory of evolution and creationism in UK newspaper reports. Curriculum Journal 17(3): 263–279.

Arthur

(2010) Analysing data is the future for journalists, says Tim Berners-Lee. Guardian.co.uk: media, 22 November. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/nov/22/data-analysis-tim-berners-lee

Booker

(2009) This is the worst scandal of our generation. The Sunday Telegraph, 29 November, p. 27.

Borgman

(2007) Scholarship in the Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure and the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Borgman

Abelson

Dirks

L et al

. (2008) Fostering Learning in the Networked World: The Cyberlearning Opportunity and Challenge, Infrastructure Report. National Science Foundation (NSF) Taskforce on Cyberlearning. Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2008/nsf08204/nsf08204.pdf

Chalmers

(2009) Communicating physics in the information age. In: Holliman

Thomas

Smidt

Scanlon

Whitelegg

(eds) Practising Science Communication in the Information Age: Theorising Professional Practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 67–80.

Davies

(2008) Flat-Earth News. London: Chatto and Windus.

10.

Deuze

Marjoribanks

(2009) Newswork. Journalism 10(5): 555–561.

11.

Gandy Jnr

(1982) Beyond Agenda Setting: Information Subsidies and Public Policy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

12.

Gieryn

(1995) Boundaries of science. In: Jasanoff

Markle

Petersen

Pinch

(eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 393–443.

13.

Glaister

(2005) LA Times ‘wikitorial’ gives editors red faces. Guardian.co.uk: technology, 22 June. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/01511745,00.html

14.

Gleick

. (2010) Climate change and the integrity of science. Science 328: 689–70.

15.

The Guardian (2009) Editorial. Fourteen days to seal history’s judgment on this generation. guardian.co.uk, 7 December. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/06/copenhagen-editorial

16.

Habermas

(2006) Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication Theory 16: 411–26.

17.

Hansen

(ed.) (1993) The Mass Media and Environmental Issues. Leicester: Leicester University Press.

18.

Heller

(2003) GM Nation? The Findings of the Public Debate. Department of Trade and Industry. London: HMSO.

19.

Hickman

Randerson

(2009) Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists. Guardian.co.uk: environment, 21 November. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails

20.

Holliman

(2007) Reporting environmental news: The evolving context for newspapers in the digital age. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5(5): 277–278.

21.

Holliman

(2008) Communicating science in the digital age – issues and prospects for public engagement. In: MacLennan

(ed.) Readings for Technical Writers. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 68–76.

22.

Holliman

(2010a) From analogue to digital scholarship: Implications for science communication researchers. Journal of Science Commmunication 9(3): C05. Available at: http://oro.open.ac.uk/23218

23.

Holliman

(2010b) Online media and the sciences. In: Priest

. (eds) Encyclopedia of Science and Technology Communication. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE, 546–551. Available at: http://oro.open.ac.uk/23119

24.

Holliman

(2011, in press) The struggle for scientific consensus: Communicating climate science around COP-15. In: Wagoner

Jensen

Oldmeadow

(eds) Culture and Social Change: Transforming Society through the Power of Ideas. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers.

25.

Holliman

Jensen

(2009) (In)authentic science and (im)partial publics: (Re)constructing the science outreach and public engagement agenda. In: Holliman

. (eds) Investigating Science Communication in the Information Age: Implications for Public Engagement and Popular Media. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 32–52.

26.

Holliman

Scanlon

(2006) Investigating co-operation and collaboration in near synchronous computer mediated conferences. Computers & Education 46(3): 322–335.

27.

House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2010) The Disclosure of Climate Data from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. Eighth Report of Session 2009–10. London: HMSO.

28.

House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2011) The Reviews into the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit’s E-mails. First Report of Session 2010–11. London: HMSO.

29.

InterAcademy Council (2010) Climate Change Assessments: Review of the Processes and Procedures of the IPCC. Amsterdam: InterAcademy Council.

30.

IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri

Reisinger

(eds)]. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm

31.

Irwin

(2006) The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the ‘new’ scientific governance. Social Studies of Science 36(2): 299–320.

32.

Irwin

(2008) Risk, science and public communication: Third order thinking about scientific culture. In: Bucchi

Trench

(eds) Public Communication of Science and Technology Handbook. London: Routledge, 199–212.

33.

Irwin

(2009) Moving forwards or in circles? Science communication and scientific governance in an age of innovation. In: Holliman

. (eds) Investigating Science Communication in the Information Age: Implications for Public Engagement and Popular Media. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3–17.

34.

Jenkins

(2006) School science and citizenship: Whose science and whose citizenship? The Curriculum Journal 17(3): 197–211.

35.

Katz

(2009) How the climate change global editorial project came about. guardian.co.uk: environment, 6 December. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/06/climate-change-leader-editorial

36.

King

Webster

(2009) Synthetic Biology: Public Dialogue on Synthetic Biology. London: Royal Academy of Engineering.

37.

Kling

McKim

King

(2003) A bit more to it: Scholarly communication forums as socio-technical interaction networks. Journal for the American Society for Information Science and Technology 54(1): 47–67.

38.

Landice (2009) Your ‘reader leaders’ on Copenhagen. Hosted at guardian.co.uk: environment blog, posted 6 December, 9.02pm. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/dec/02/reader-leaders-copenhagen

39.

Latour

(1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

40.

Leadbetter

Miller

(2004) The Pro-am Revolution: How Enthusiasts Are Changing our Economy and Society. London: Demos.

41.

McNair

(2009) Journalism in the 21st century – evolution, not extinction. Journalism 10(3): 347–349.

42.

Macrae

(2009) Hackers ‘expose global warming con’: Sceptics claim that leaked emails reveal research centre massaged temperature data. Daily Mail, 21 November. Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229740/Hackers-expose-global-warming-Claims-leaked-emails-reveal-research-centre-massaged-temperature-data.html

43.

Montford

(2010) The Climategate Inquiries. London: Global Warming Policy Foundation.

44.

Montgomery

(2009) Science and the online world: realities and issues for discussion. In: Holliman

. (eds) Practising Science Communication in the Information Age: Theorising Professional Practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 83–97.

45.

Nature (2006) Editorial. Peer review and fraud: Two assessments of the refereeing process highlight challenges for journals. Nature 444: 971–972.

46.

Nerlich

(2010) ‘Climategate’: Paradoxical metaphors and political paralysis. Environmental Values 19: 419–442.

47.

Nisbet

Scheufele

(2009) What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany 96: 1767–1778.

48.

Oreskes

Conway

(2010) Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York: Bloomsbury Press.

49.

Oxburgh

Davies

Emanuel

K et al

. (2010) Report of the International Panel set up by the University of East Anglia to examine the research of the Climatic Research Unit. Available at: http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP

50.

Pearce

(2010) The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming. London: Guardian Books.

51.

PeteDun (2009) Your ‘reader leaders’ on Copenhagen. Hosted at guardian.co.uk: environment blog, posted 6 December, 10.12pm. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/dec/02/reader-leaders-copenhagen

52.

Priest

(2009) Reinterpreting the audiences for media messages about science. In: Holliman

. (eds) Investigating Science Communication in the Information Age: Implications for Public Engagement and Popular Media. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 223–236.

53.

Rayner

(2009) Who’s to blame for ‘Climategate’? The global fall-out from damning emails about climate change is gathering momentum. The Daily Telegraph, 28 November, p. 19.

54.

Reisch

(2010) Changing news: Re-adjusting science studies to online news. Public Understanding of Science. Available at: http://pus.sagepub.com/content/early/recent

55.

Russell

Boulton

Clarke

Eyton

Norton

(2010) The Independent Climate Change Emails Review. Available at: http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf

56.

Ryghaug

Skjølsvold

(2010) The global warming of climate science: Climategate and the construction of scientific facts. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 24(3): 287–307.

57.

Schofield

Bubela

Weaver

. (2009) Post-publication sharing of data and tools. Nature 461: 171–3.

58.

Schulze

(2009) Patents and the dissemination of scientific knowledge. In: Holliman

. (eds) Practising Science Communication in the Information Age: Theorising Professional Practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 35–49.

59.

Shirky

(2008) Here Comes Everybody: How Change Happens when People come Together. London: Penguin.

60.

Stilgoe

(2007) Nanodialogues: Experiments in Public Engagement with Science. London: Demos.

61.

Thompson

(1999) The media and modernity. In: Mackay

O’Sullivan

(eds) The Media Reader: Continuity and Transformation. London: SAGE, 13–27.

62.

Trench

(2007) How the Internet changed science journalism. In: Bauer

Bucchi

(eds) Journalism, Science and Society: Science Communication between News and Public Relations. London: Routledge, 133–141.

63.

Trench

(2011, in press) Scientists’ blogs: glimpses behind the scenes. In: Rödder

Franzen

Weingart

(eds) The Sciences’ Media Connection – Communication to the Public and its Repercussions. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook. Dordrecht: Springer.

64.

UEA (2009a) CRU Update 1, 23 November. Available at: http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/CRU-update

65.

UEA (2009b) CRU Update 2, 24 November. Available at: http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/CRUupdate

66.

Vidal

(2009) A perfect storm. Independent twitterers, bloggers, activists and diverse interest groups will outnumber the media at the Copenhagen summit. guardian.co.uk: media, 7 December. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/dec/07/copenhagen-summit-media-army

67.

Wager

(2009) Peer review in science journals: Past, present and future. In: Holliman

. (eds) Practising Science Communication in the Information Age: Theorising Professional Practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 115–130.

68.

Whitell

(2009) He has a mountain to climb and a gulf to bridge: Obama’s big climate journey. The Times, 27 November, pp. 54–55.

69.

Wood

Jones

Geldart

(2003) The Social and Economic Challenges of Nanotechnology. Swindon: Economic and Social Research Council.

70.

Wulf

(1993) The collaboratory opportunity. Science 261: 854–855.

71.

Ziman

(2000) Real Science: What it Is and What it Means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.