Talk like an expert: The construction of expertise in news comments concerning climate change.

This article explores how readers of UK newspapers construct expertise around climate change. It draws on 300 online readers' comments on news items in The Guardian, Daily Mail and The Telegraph, concerning the release of the International Panel on Climate Change report calling for immediate action on climate change. Comments were analysed using discursive psychology. We identified a series of discursive strategies that commenters adopted to present themselves as experts in their commentary. The (mostly indirect) use of category entitlements (implicitly claiming themselves as expert) and the presentation of one's argument as factual (based on direct or indirect technical knowledge or common sense) emerged as common ways in which readers made claims to expertise, both among the supporters and among the sceptics of climate change science. Our findings indicate that expertise is a fluid concept, constructed in diverse ways, with important implications for public engagement with climate change science.

Moral (dis)engagement with anthropogenic climate change in online comments on newspaper articles.

Anthropogenic climate change (ACC) is widely acknowledged to be morally significant, but little is known about everyday moralising around ACC. We addressed this gap via quantified thematic analysis of 300 online comments to British newspaper articles on ACC, drawing on Bandura's moral disengagement theory. Moral disengagement through denial of ACC was widespread. Other disengagement strategies, such as palliative comparison and diminishing agency, occurred less often. There was also some moral engagement, most often through assertions of the existence of ACC and/or its harmful effects. Moral disengagement was significantly more common in comments on right wing than left wing newspapers, whereas the opposite was true of moral engagement. Although Bandura's framework provided a useful starting point to make sense of ACC moralising, it did not capture moral concerns that extended beyond its "harm/care" remit. In particular, many "denial" comments included a "dishonesty" discourse, whereby ACC proponents were accused of deception for ulterior motives. To classify this discourse as moral disengagement obscures its engagement with a different set of moral issues around trust and honesty. We suggest that Bandura's theory represents one possible "moral landscape" around ACC and could be extended to encompass a broader range of moral concerns.

The use of religious metaphors by UK newspapers to describe and denigrate climate change.

British newspapers have denigrated anthropogenic climate change by misrepresenting scientific consensus and/or framing climate change within unsympathetic discourses. One aspect of the latter that has not been studied is the use of metaphor to disparage climate change science and proponents. This article analyses 122 British newspaper articles published using a religious metaphor between summer 2003 and 2008. Most were critical of climate change, especially articles in conservative newspapers The Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail and The Times. Articles used religion as a source of metaphor to denigrate climate change in two ways: (1) undermining its scientific status by presenting it as irrational faith-based religion, and proponents as religious extremists intolerant of criticism; (2) mocking climate change using notions of sin, e.g. describing 'green' behaviours as atonement or sacrifice. We argue that the religious metaphor damages constructive debate by emphasizing morality and how climate change is discussed, and detracting attention from the content of scientific data and theories.