Sources of doubt: actors, forums, and language of climate change skepticism.

The paper investigates the reference corpus of a climate change contrarian report. We categorized the journal abstracts according to the endorsement positions on anthropogenic climate change. These results were contrasted by an in-text citation analysis. We focused here on the role of the papers included by the report editors concerning the mainstream claims around climate change. Our results showed moderate differences in the endorsement rates as well as in the sources of contrarian arguments considering the contrarian report in general and the presented journals specifically. These outcomes indicate differences among the journals regarding editorial practice, topic-dependency, and the home field advantage of some authors. Beyond the bibliometric data, our additional rhetorical analysis showed that language and wording are at least as important as the references backing the claims. The well-founded atmosphere of doubt in the climate skeptic report relies on two prevalent factors working together: relevant information accumulated on methodological uncertainties and findings that do not support mainstream knowledge claims (1); and solemn rhetoric supplemented with proper re-contextualization and reinterpretation (2). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]