1887
Volume 4, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2542-9477
  • E-ISSN: 2542-9485
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study analyses epistemic stance in social media climate change discussions, contributing to our understanding of how factuality and likelihood are evaluated in climate change discourse. Using a corpus of 1.2 million words, the paper compares the frequencies of epistemic stance in climate change sceptic and climate change proponent discourses on two social media platforms, Twitter and Reddit. Based on the quantitative analysis, the paper argues that both platform and climate change beliefs influence register in terms of epistemic stance. Overall, Reddit uses more epistemic stance markers than Twitter. Sceptics use less hedging of likelihood and more lexis evaluating the factuality and reliability of their opponents. The interpersonal functions of epistemic stance are shown to be associated with different platform uses and affordances and with the different goals, worldviews, and concerns of the factions. The study thus calls for further linguistic comparison of platforms and different factions within the platforms.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rs.22005.bir
2022-10-27
2022-12-08
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Agius, C., Bergman Rosamond, A., & Kinnvall, C.
    (2020) Populism, ontological insecurity and gendered nationalism: Masculinity, climate denial and Covid-19. Politics, Religion and Ideology, 21 (4), 432–450. 10.1080/21567689.2020.1851871
    https://doi.org/10.1080/21567689.2020.1851871 [Google Scholar]
  2. Alonso-Almeida, F.
    (2015) On the mitigating function of modality and evidentiality. Evidence from English and Spanish medical research papers. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12 (1), 33–57. 10.1515/ip‑2015‑0002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2015-0002 [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson, A. A., & Huntington, H. E.
    (2017) Social media, science, and attack discourse: How Twitter discussions of climate change use sarcasm and incivility. Science Communication, 39 (5), 598–620. 10.1177/1075547017735113
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017735113 [Google Scholar]
  4. Andersson, M.
    (2021) The climate of climate change: Impoliteness as a hallmark of homophily in YouTube comment threads on Greta Thunberg’s environmental activism. Journal of Pragmatics, 1781, 93–107. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.03.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.03.003 [Google Scholar]
  5. Andi, S.
    (2020) How people access news about climate change. InNewman, N., Fletcher, R., Schulz, A., Andı, S., Nielsen, R. K. (Eds.), Reuters Institute digital news report 2020 (pp.52–57). Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Arlt, D., Hoppe, I., Schmitt, J. B., De Silva-Schmidt, F., & Brüggemann, M.
    (2018) Climate engagement in a digital age: Exploring the drivers of participation in climate discourse online in the context of COP21. Environmental Communication, 12 (1), 84–98. 10.1080/17524032.2017.1394892
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2017.1394892 [Google Scholar]
  7. Baumgartner, J., Zannettou, S., Keegan, B., Squire, M., & Blackburn, J.
    (2020) The Pushshift Reddit dataset. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 14 (1), 830–839. 10.1609/icwsm.v14i1.7347
    https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v14i1.7347 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bednarek, M.
    (2006) Evaluation in media discourse: analysis of a newspaper corpus. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. (2008) Emotion talk across corpora. Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230285712
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230285712 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bednarek, M., Ross, A. S., Boichak, O., Doran, Y. J., Carr, G., Altmann, E. G., & Alexander, T. J.
    (2022) Winning the discursive struggle? The impact of a significant environmental crisis event on dominant climate discourses on Twitter. Discourse, Context & Media, 451, 100564. 10.1016/j.dcm.2021.100564
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2021.100564 [Google Scholar]
  11. Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y.
    (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 57 (1), 289–300.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Biber, D., & Conrad, S.
    (2019) Register, genre, and style (2nd ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108686136
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108686136 [Google Scholar]
  13. Biber, D., & Egbert, J.
    (2018) Register variation online. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316388228
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316388228 [Google Scholar]
  14. Biber, D., & Finegan, E.
    (1988) Adverbial stance types in English. Discourse Processes, 11 (1), 1–34. 10.1080/01638538809544689
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538809544689 [Google Scholar]
  15. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
    (1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Boye, K.
    (2012) Epistemic meaning: A crosslinguistic and functional-cognitive study. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219036
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219036 [Google Scholar]
  17. Brüggemann, M., Elgesem, D., Bienzeisler, N., Gertz, H. D., & Walter, S.
    (2020) Mutual group polarization in the blogosphere: Tracking the hoax discourse on climate change. International Journal of Communication, 141, 1025–1048.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Buckledee, S.
    (2018) The language of Brexit: How Britain talked its way out of the European Union. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Cagle, L. E., & Herndl, C.
    (2019) Shades of denialism: Discovering possibilities for a more nuanced deliberation about climate change in online discussion forums. Communication Design Quarterly, 7 (1), 22–39. 10.1145/3331558.3331561
    https://doi.org/10.1145/3331558.3331561 [Google Scholar]
  20. Charles, M.
    (2003) “This mystery…”: A corpus-based study of the use of nouns to construct stance in theses from two contrasting disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2 (4), 313–326. 10.1016/S1475‑1585(03)00048‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00048-1 [Google Scholar]
  21. Chipidza, W.
    (2021) The effect of toxicity on COVID-19 news network formation in political subcommunities on Reddit: An affiliation network approach. International Journal of Information Management, 611. 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102397
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102397 [Google Scholar]
  22. Clarke, I.
    (2022) A multi-dimensional analysis of English tweets. Language and Literature, 31 (2), 124–149. 10.1177/09639470221090369
    https://doi.org/10.1177/09639470221090369 [Google Scholar]
  23. Conrad, S., & Biber, D.
    (2000) Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. InHunston, S., Thompson, G. (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp.56–73). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Culpeper, J.
    (2011) Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511975752
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975752 [Google Scholar]
  25. De Francisci Morales, G., Monti, C., & Starnini, M.
    (2021) No echo in the chambers of political interactions on Reddit. Scientific Reports, 11 (1), 2818. 10.1038/s41598‑021‑81531‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81531-x [Google Scholar]
  26. Del Valle, M. E., Sijtsma, R., Stegeman, H., & Borge, R.
    (2020) Online deliberation and the public sphere: Developing a coding manual to assess deliberation in Twitter political networks. Javnost – The Public, 27 (3), 211–229. 10.1080/13183222.2020.1794408
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2020.1794408 [Google Scholar]
  27. Du Bois, J. W.
    (2007) The stance triangle. InEnglebretson, R. (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse (pp.139–182). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.164.07du
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du [Google Scholar]
  28. Dunlap, R. E., & McCright, A. M.
    (2010) Climate change denial: Sources, actors and strategies. InLever-Tracy, C. (Ed.), Routledge handbook of climate change and society (pp.240–259). Milton Park: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Eberl, M.
    (2020) Double trouble: Are 280-character tweets comparable to 140-character tweets?InRüdiger, S., Dayter, D. (Eds.), Corpus approaches to social media (pp.131–146). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.98.06ebe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.98.06ebe [Google Scholar]
  30. Englebretson, R.
    (2007) Stancetaking in discourse: an introduction. InEnglebretson, R. (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse (pp.1–26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.164.02eng
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.02eng [Google Scholar]
  31. Friginal, E., Waugh, O., & Titak, A.
    (2017) Linguistic variation in Facebook and Twitter posts. InFriginal, E. (Ed.), Studies in corpus-based sociolinguistics (pp.342–362). New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315527819‑15
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315527819-15 [Google Scholar]
  32. Fu, X., & Hyland, K.
    (2014) Interaction in two journalistic genres: A study of interactional metadiscourse. English Text Construction, 7 (1), 122–144. 10.1075/etc.7.1.05fu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.7.1.05fu [Google Scholar]
  33. Gablasova, D., Brezina, V., McEnery, T., & Boyd, E.
    (2017) Epistemic stance in spoken L2 English: The effect of task and speaker style. Applied Linguistics, 38 (5), 613–637. 10.1093/applin/amv055
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv055 [Google Scholar]
  34. González, M., Roseano, P., Borràs-Comes, J., & Prieto, P.
    (2017) Epistemic and evidential marking in discourse: Effects of register and debatability. Lingua, 186–1871, 68–87. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.008 [Google Scholar]
  35. Gray, B., & Biber, D.
    (2012) Current conceptions of stance. InHyland, K., Guinda, C. S. (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp.15–33). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. 10.1057/9781137030825_2
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137030825_2 [Google Scholar]
  36. Gries, S. T.
    (2008) Dispersions and adjusted frequencies in corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13 (4), 403–437. 10.1075/ijcl.13.4.02gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.13.4.02gri [Google Scholar]
  37. (2020) Analysing dispersion. InPaquot, M., Gries, S. T. (Eds.), Practical handbook of corpus linguistics (pp.99–118). Berlin: Springer International. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑46216‑1_5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46216-1_5 [Google Scholar]
  38. Grundmann, R., & Krishnamurthy, R.
    (2010) The discourse of climate change: A corpus-based approach. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines, 4 (2), 113–133.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Hansson, S.
    (2018) The discursive micro-politics of blame avoidance: Unpacking the language of government blame games. Policy Sciences, 51 (4), 545–564. 10.1007/s11077‑018‑9335‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-018-9335-3 [Google Scholar]
  40. Hobson, K., & Niemeyer, S.
    (2013) “What sceptics believe”: The effects of information and deliberation on climate change scepticism. Public Understanding of Science, 22 (4), 396–412. 10.1177/0963662511430459
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662511430459 [Google Scholar]
  41. Honnibal, M., & Johnson, M.
    (2015) An improved non-monotonic transition system for dependency parsing. InProceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp.1373–1378). Lisbon: Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.18653/v1/D15‑1162
    https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D15-1162 [Google Scholar]
  42. Hosch-Dayican, B.
    (2014) Online political activities as emerging forms of political participation: How do they fit in the conceptual map?Acta Politica, 49 (3), 342–346.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Hyland, K.
    (1996) Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17 (4), 433–454. 10.1093/applin/17.4.433
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.4.433 [Google Scholar]
  44. (1998) Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text, 18 (3), 349–382.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. (2005) Metadiscourse: exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Jacobs, K., & Spierings, N.
    (2019) A populist paradise? Examining populists’ Twitter adoption and use. Information, Communication & Society, 22 (12), 1681–1696. 10.1080/1369118X.2018.1449883
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1449883 [Google Scholar]
  47. Jacques, P. J., & Knox, C. C.
    (2016) Hurricanes and hegemony: A qualitative analysis of micro-level climate change denial discourses. Environmental Politics, 831–852. 10.1080/09644016.2016.1189233
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2016.1189233 [Google Scholar]
  48. Jaffe, A.
    (2009) Introduction. InJaffe, A. (Ed.), Stance: Sociolinguistic perspectives (pp.3–28). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331646.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331646.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  49. Jaidka, K., Zhou, A., & Lelkes, Y.
    (2019) Brevity is the soul of Twitter: The constraint affordance and political discussion. Journal of Communication, 69 (4), 345–372. 10.1093/joc/jqz023
    https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz023 [Google Scholar]
  50. Jang, S. M., & Hart, P. S.
    (2015) Polarized frames on “climate change” and “global warming” across countries and states: Evidence from Twitter big data. Global Environmental Change, 321, 11–17. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.02.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.02.010 [Google Scholar]
  51. Jiang, F., & Hyland, K.
    (2015) ‘The fact that’: Stance nouns in disciplinary writing. Discourse Studies, 17 (5), 529–550. 10.1177/1461445615590719
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445615590719 [Google Scholar]
  52. Knight, G., & Greenberg, J.
    (2011) Talk of the enemy: Adversarial framing and climate change discourse. Social Movement Studies, 10 (4), 323–340. 10.1080/14742837.2011.614102
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2011.614102 [Google Scholar]
  53. Knoblock, N.
    (2020) Negotiating dominance on Facebook : Positioning of self and others in pro- and anti-Trump comments on immigration. Discourse & Society, 31 (5), 520–539. 10.1177/0957926520914684
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926520914684 [Google Scholar]
  54. Kovaka, K.
    (2021) Climate change denial and beliefs about science. Synthese, 198 (3), 2355–2374. 10.1007/s11229‑019‑02210‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02210-z [Google Scholar]
  55. Leombruni, L. V.
    (2015) How you talk about climate change matters: A communication network perspective on epistemic skepticism and belief strength. Global Environmental Change, 351, 148–161. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.08.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.08.006 [Google Scholar]
  56. Leuckert, S., & Leuckert, M.
    (2020) Towards a digital sociolinguistics: Communities of practice on Reddit. InRüdiger, S., Dayter, D. (Eds.), Corpus approaches to social media (pp.15–40). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.98.01leu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.98.01leu [Google Scholar]
  57. Liimatta, A.
    (2019) Exploring register variation on Reddit. Register Studies, 1 (2), 269–295. 10.1075/rs.18005.lii
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.18005.lii [Google Scholar]
  58. Lijffijt, J., Nevalainen, T., Säily, T., Papapetrou, P., Puolamäki, K., & Mannila, H.
    (2016) Significance testing of word frequencies in corpora. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 31 (2), 374–397. 10.1093/llc/fqu064
    https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqu064 [Google Scholar]
  59. Massanari, A.
    (2017) #Gamergate and The Fappening: How Reddit’s algorithm, governance, and culture support toxic technocultures. New Media & Society, 19 (3), 329–346. 10.1177/1461444815608807
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815608807 [Google Scholar]
  60. Medimorec, S., & Pennycook, G.
    (2015) The language of denial: text analysis reveals differences in language use between climate change proponents and skeptics. Climatic Change, 133 (4), 597–605. 10.1007/s10584‑015‑1475‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1475-2 [Google Scholar]
  61. Moore, C., & Chuang, L.
    (2017) Redditors revealed: Motivational factors of the Reddit community. InProceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp.2313–2322). 10.24251/HICSS.2017.279
    https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2017.279 [Google Scholar]
  62. Myers, G.
    (1989) The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10 (1), 1–35. 10.1093/applin/10.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/10.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  63. Myers, K. F., Doran, P. T., Cook, J., Kotcher, J. E., & Myers, T. A.
    (2021) Consensus revisited: quantifying scientific agreement on climate change and climate expertise among Earth scientists 10 years later. Environmental Research Letters, 16 (10). 10.1088/1748‑9326/ac2774
    https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774 [Google Scholar]
  64. Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Robertson, C. T., Eddy, K., & Nielsen, R. K.
    (2022) Reuters Institute digital news report 2022. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Oz, M., Zheng, P., & Chen, G. M.
    (2018) Twitter versus Facebook: Comparing incivility, impoliteness, and deliberative attributes. New Media & Society, 20 (9), 3400–3419. 10.1177/1461444817749516
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817749516 [Google Scholar]
  66. Paradis, C.
    (2001) Adjectives and boundedness. Cognitive Linguistics, 12 (1), 47–65. 10.1515/cogl.12.1.47
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.12.1.47 [Google Scholar]
  67. Poortinga, W., Whitmarsh, L., Steg, L., Böhm, G., & Fisher, S.
    (2019) Climate change perceptions and their individual-level determinants: A cross-European analysis. Global Environmental Change, 551, 25–35. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.01.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.01.007 [Google Scholar]
  68. r/ClimateChange
    r/ClimateChange (n.d.). ClimateChange, Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/climatechange/. Internet archived version 16.10.2019. https://web.archive.org/web/20191016150541/https://www.reddit.com/r/climatechange/. Accessed2.8.2022
    [Google Scholar]
  69. r/ClimateSkeptics
    r/ClimateSkeptics (n.d.). ClimateSkeptics, Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/. Internet archived version 15.10.2019. https://web.archive.org/web/20191015103233/https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/Accessed2.8.2022
    [Google Scholar]
  70. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2019) R: A language and environment for statistical computing [WWW Document]. https://www.R-project.org/
  71. Rayson, P., Archer, D., Piao, S. L., & McEnery, T.
    (2004) The UCREL semantic analysis system. InProceedings of the Workshop on Beyond Named Entity Recognition Semantic Labelling for NLP Tasks in Association with 4th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2004), 25th May 2004, Lisbon, Portugal (pp.7–12). Lisbon, Portugal.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Robards, B.
    (2018) Belonging and neo-tribalism on social media site Reddit. InHardy, A., Bennett, A., Robards, B. (Eds.), Neo-tribes: Consumption, leisure and tourism (pp.187–206). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑68207‑5_12
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68207-5_12 [Google Scholar]
  73. Schmid, H.-J.
    (2000) English abstract nouns as conceptual shells: From corpus to cognition. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110808704
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110808704 [Google Scholar]
  74. Swales, J. M.
    (1990) Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Titak, A., & Roberson, A.
    (2013) Dimensions of web registers: an exploratory multi-dimensional comparison. Corpora, 8 (2), 235–260. 10.3366/cor.2013.0042
    https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2013.0042 [Google Scholar]
  76. Tranter, B., & Booth, K.
    (2015) Scepticism in a changing climate: A cross-national study. Global Environmental Change, 331, 154–164. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.05.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.05.003 [Google Scholar]
  77. Twint project
    Twint project (2021) TWINT – Twitter Intelligence Tool [Github repository], https://github.com/twintproject/twint. Accessed2.8.2022.
  78. Vassileva, I.
    (2001) Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20 (1), 83–102. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(99)00029‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00029-0 [Google Scholar]
  79. Vulpe, S.
    (2020) Cooling down the future. A discourse analysis of climate change skepticism. The Social Science Journal, 1–17. 10.1080/03623319.2020.1848294
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03623319.2020.1848294 [Google Scholar]
  80. Wiemer, B.
    (2018) Evidentials and epistemic modality. InAikhenvald, A. Y. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidentiality (pp.84–108). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Williams, H. T. P., McMurray, J. R., Kurz, T., & Lambert, F. H.
    (2015) Network analysis reveals open forums and echo chambers in social media discussions of climate change. Global Environmental Change, 321, 126–138. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.006 [Google Scholar]
  82. World Meteorological Organization
    World Meteorological Organization (2022) State of the Global Climate 2021 (WMO-No. 1290). Geneva: World Meteorological Organization.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Zappavigna, M.
    (2014) CoffeeTweets: bonding around the bean on Twitter. InSeargeant, P., Tagg, C. (Eds.), The language of social media (pp.139–160). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. 10.1057/9781137029317_7
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137029317_7 [Google Scholar]
  84. Zappavigna, M., & Martin, J. R.
    (2018) #Communing affiliation: Social tagging as a resource for aligning around values in social media. Discourse, Context & Media, 221, 4–12. 10.1016/j.dcm.2017.08.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2017.08.001 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/rs.22005.bir
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/rs.22005.bir
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): climate change; epistemic stance; Reddit; social media; Twitter
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error