Talk of the Enemy: Adversarial Framing and Climate Change Discourse

Abstract

This article provides a comparative analysis of adversarial framing oriented to reputation discrediting in the context of social movement/counter-movement relations. Website material associated with two Canadian organizations, the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP) and DeSmogBlog (DSB), involved on opposite sides of the contention over anthropogenic global warming (AGW), is analysed to examine how each side identifies and frames its adversaries and the latter's claims-making practices. The analysis focuses on the extent to which the structure of adversarial framing by each side differs from or is mirrored by the framing of the other side. Both sides discredit their opponents on the basis of five reputational dimensions: practices, moral character, competence and qualifications, social associations, and real versus apparent motivations. The principal point of difference concerns the main focus of discrediting, with the NRSP focusing chiefly on its opponents' claims-making practices and the DSB on moral character. Both discourses, nonetheless, create an integrated discrediting narrative in which all five dimensions are involved, with motivation acting as a cognitive and normative thread tying the other dimensions together.

Keywords:

• Climate change
• anthropogenic global warming
• movements and counter-movements
• adversarial framing
• reputational politics
• discrediting

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for funding the research from which this article stems, and the anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier draft.

Notes

1. Throughout, we use the term climate change or AGW ‘realist’ rather than ‘advocate’ or ‘proponent’, because these terms have been subject to ironic criticism by sceptics as their literal meaning suggests someone who is in favour of AGW, rather than holding a belief in AGW as a reality. We also use the term ‘sceptic’ rather than ‘denier’, as this denotes more clearly those who accept that climate change occurs but take exception to the view that it is human-induced. The binary distinction between the realists and sceptics is meant to capture the majority positions in the contention over climate change. We recognize that other positions exist, such as those who concede that AGW is a reality, but emphasize the need for adaptation rather than mitigation by means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

2. Since Andrew Weaver issued his libel suit against Tim Ball, many of the articles by Ball used in this analysis have been removed from the Canada Free Press website.

3. The Wegman report has been the subject of considerable controversy in its own right, both for the political motives behind its origins and the intellectual integrity of its contents. Wegman's home institution, George Mason University, recently confirmed that it is investigating allegations that much of the report was plagiarized (Vergano, 2011).