This study uses a topical, rhetorical analysis of the 25 most popular posts on the Facebook pages for Watts Up With That and the Global Warming Policy Forum to examine how climate change denial circulates online. These groups adopt the appearance of credibility through reposting and hyperlinking, thus establishing a supportive, networked space among other skeptical sites, while distancing readers from original sources of scientific information. Page visitors used a variety of rhetorical strategies to echo the posts' main themes and to discredit alternative viewpoints. Differences between the topoi and rhetorical strategies on the two pages show that the climate change denial community is multifaceted and makes use of social media affordances to craft the appearance of legitimacy. This project contributes to our knowledge of how scientific information is co-opted, manipulated, and circulated in online spaces and how online features shape environmental discourse practices.

The many obstacles to productive climate change communication necessitate new approaches. Based on science communication strategies that promote engagement rather than knowledge transfer, we assigned participants ( N = 329) to randomized chat groups that discussed similarities between group members (intimacy condition) or information about climate change (information condition). This study combined Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) and rhetorical analysis and found that groups in the intimacy condition were more likely to exhibit commonality than groups in the information condition. This study offers practical strategies for having productive discussions on controversial scientific topics such as climate change.

Animation enhances transparency and name agreement, especially for verbs, which reduces the instructional burden that comes with nontransparent symbols. Animation does not enhance identification accuracy. Verbs are easier to identify than prepositions. A developmental effect was observed for each measure. Limitations and implications for future research are discussed.

This study examined if creating intimacy in a group discussion is more effective toward reaching consensus about climate change than a focus on information. Participants were randomly assigned to either a group that spent the first part of an online discussion engaging in self-disclosure and focusing on shared values (intimacy condition) or discussing information from an article about climate change (information condition). Afterward, all groups were given the same instructions to try to come to group consensus on their opinions about climate change. Participants in the intimacy condition had higher ratings of social cohesion, group attraction, task interdependence, and collective engagement and lower ratings of ostracism than the information condition. Intimacy groups were more likely to reach consensus, with ostracism and the emotional tone of discussion mediating this effect. Participants were more likely to change their opinion to reflect that climate change is real in the intimacy than information condition.

No abstract