氣候變遷傳播是環境傳播中與氣候變遷議題相關的資訊流。隨著媒體科技革新，現今公眾能在社群媒體上進行氣候變遷之資訊交換。近期在社群媒體上受到民眾關注之氣候變遷議題有海平面上升、北極熊生存危機等，亦有青年氣候倡議者出現，Greta Thunberg正是在平台上受到高度關注的意見領袖，除了她發起的氣候變遷罷課運動(Friday For Future)資訊之外，她在聯合國氣候峰會(UN Climate Change Summit 2019)的演說資訊也大量曝光於平台上，引發民眾熱議。然而僅瀏覽留言內容並無法得知公眾在社群媒體上是否對氣候變遷議題進行審議，須以審議指標為基準評估留言的審議品質。本研究發展適用評估社群媒體上中文留言品質之審議指標，藉以分析平台性質與貼文類型與討論的脈絡和品質之間的關聯。
本研究旨在探討平台間不同的特性是否影響討論網絡的形成，亦採用質性框架分析法，將留言進行分類，藉此可以更了解留言討論之主軸及脈絡。在研究議題上將海平面上升、北極熊生存危機以及Greta Thunberg聯合國氣候峰會演說內容分成以偏重科學視角的「生態衝擊」以及納入科學以外面向的「青年倡議」兩類別貼文進行分析。研究結果顯示，受平台機制影響，兩平台留言之審議品質有所差異，而留言者對氣候變遷因應之討論內容大多偏向消極態度。從研究者文本閱讀資訊中亦發現情感導向內容爭議小、回應快，但無法達到氣候變遷內容之深度探討；而立場辯論內容爭議大、傳播速度快，能讓使用者聚焦於氣候變遷內容的討論，不過若立場過於偏激，可能造成傳播的反效果。

Climate change communication is the flow of information related to climate change issues in environmental communication. With the innovation of technology, the public can exchange information about climate change on social media now. Recently, sea-level rise and the survival crisis of polar bears are popular issues on social media. Moreover, Greta Thunberg, a young climate opinion leader who launched the climate change strike, has received much attention. In addition to her information on the climate change movement, her speeches at UN Climate Change Summit 2019 sparked much public debate. However, it is impossible to know whether the discussion on social media has promoted the public's deliberation of climate change just by browsing the comments. The research applies indicators to assess the quality of Chinese comments on social media, analyzing the relationship between the nature of the platform and the type of posts, and the context and quality of the discussion.
The research aims to explore whether the different characteristics of platforms affect the formation of discussion networks. It also uses the qualitative framework analysis method to classify comments to understand the context deeply. Regarding research topics, sea-level rise, polar bear survival crisis, and Greta Thunberg's speech at the United Nations Climate Summit are divided into two categories: "ecological shocks" from a scientific perspective and "youth initiatives" including non-science. The study results found that due to the influence of the platform mechanism, the deliberation quality of comments on the two platforms is different, and most of the commenters have a negative attitude towards the discussion of climate change. The researcher's text reading information reveals that emotionally-oriented content is less controversial and responded quickly, but it cannot achieve an in-depth discussion of climate change. The content of the position debate is highly controversial but spread quickly, allowing users to focus on the discussion of climate change; while the stance is too extreme, it may cause the counter-effect of communication.

Auer, M. R., Zhang, Y., & Lee, P. (2014). The potential of microblogs for the study of public perceptions of climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5(3), 291-296.
Ballantyne, A. G. (2016). Climate change communication: what can we learn from communication theory? . Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 7(3), 329-344.
Bohman, J., & Rehg, W. (2007). Jürgen habermas.
Boykoff, M. T., & Roberts, J. T. (2007). Media coverage of climate change: current trends, strengths, weaknesses. Human development report, 2008(3).
Burkhalter, S., Gastil, J., & Kelshaw, T. (2002). A conceptual definition and theoretical model of public deliberation in small face—to—face groups. Communication theory, 12(4), 398-422.
Cappella, J. N., Price, V., & Nir, L. (2002). Argument repertoire as a reliable and valid measure of opinion quality: Electronic dialogue during campaign 2000. Political Communication, 19(1), 73-93.
Carpini, M. X. D., Cook, F. L., & Jacobs, L. R. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci., 7, 315-344.
Carter, S. (1998). Civility: Manners, morals, and the etiquette of democracy. Basic Books.
Chadwick, A. (2017) Climate change communication. Oxford research Encyclopedia of communication, Oxford University Press, USA, pp 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.22
ChangeNations Framework Convention on ClimateUnited. (2013/04/26). UNITED NATION FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE (UNFCCC). Retreive from GLOSSARY OF STATISTICAL TERMS: https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=7356
Cody, E. M., Reagan, A. J., Mitchell, L., Dodds, P. S., & Danforth, C. M. (2015). Climate change sentiment on Twitter: An unsolicited public opinion poll. PloS one, 10(8).
Cox, R., & Depoe, S. (2015). Emergence and growth of the ‘field’of environmental communication. The Routledge handbook of environment and communication, 13-25.
Dahlberg, L. (2004). Net-public sphere research: beyond the “first phase”. Javnost-The Public, 11(1), 27-43.
Dahlberg, L. (2007). The Internet, deliberative democracy, and power: Radicalizing the public sphere. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics, 3(1), 47-64.
Davis, R. (1999). The web of politics: The Internet's impact on the American political system. Oxford University Press.
Doheny-Farina, S. (1996). The wired neighborhood. Yale University Press.
Dryzek, J. S. (2002). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford University Press on Demand.
Dutwin, D. J. (2002). Can people talk politics? A study of deliberative democracy.
Engelke, K. M. (2019). Enriching the Conversation: Audience Perspectives on the Deliberative Nature and Potential of User Comments for News Media. Digital Journalism, 1-20.
Facebook. (2020). Our History. Retreive, from Facebook: https://about.fb.com/company-info/
Facebook. (2020). Retrieve from: https://www.facebook.com/
Feldman, L. (2014). The hostile media effect. In The Oxford handbook of political communication.
Fridays for future,2019. Retrieve 2019, from https://www.fridaysforfuture.org/
Gastil, J. (2000). By popular demand: Revitalizing representative democracy through deliberative elections. Univ of California Press.
Gearhart, S., Moe, A., & Zhang, B. Hostile media bias on social media: Testing the effect of user comments on perceptions of news bias and credibility. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies.
Google. (2020/04/22). Google Trends. Retrieve from Google Trends: https://trends.google.com.tw/trends/?geo=TW
Graham, T., & Witschge, T. (2003). In search of online deliberation: Towards a new method for examining the quality of online discussions. Communications, 28(2), 173-204.
Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. F. (2009). Why deliberative democracy?. Princeton University Press.
Habermas, J. (2010). The public sphere: an encyclopedia article (1964). The idea of the public sphere: A reader, 114-120.
Habermas, J., & Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. MIT press.
Habermas, J., Lennox, S., & Lennox, F. (1974). The public sphere: An encyclopedia article (1964). New German Critique, (3), 49-55.
Habermas, J., McCarthy, T., & McCarthy, T. (1984). The theory of communicative action (Vol. 1, p. 308). Boston: Beacon press.
Habermas, J., McCarthy, T., & McCarthy, T. (1984). The theory of communicative action (Vol. 1, p. 308). Boston: Beacon press.
Halpern, D., & Gibbs, J. (2013). Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation? Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 1159-1168.
Hampton, K. N., Lee, C. J., & Her, E. J. (2011). How new media affords network diversity: Direct and mediated access to social capital through participation in local social settings. new media & society, 13(7), 1031-1049.
Hansen, A., & Cox, R. (Eds.). (2015). The Routledge handbook of environment and communication. Routledge.
HayhoeKatharine. (2018). TED. Retrieve from TED: https://www.ted.com/talks/katharine_hayhoe_the_most_important_thing_you_can_do_to_fight_climate_change_talk_about_it?language=zh-tw
Holmberg, K., & Hellsten, I. (2015). Gender differences in the climate change communication on Twitter. Internet Research.
IPCC. (2007). Retreive from AR5 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2014: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/
Jamieson, K. H., & Cappella, J. N. (2008). Echo chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the conservative media establishment. Oxford University Press.
Janssen, D., & Kies, R. (2005). Online forums and deliberative democracy. Acta política, 40(3), 317-335.
Jünger, J., & Fähnrich, B. (2020). Does really no one care? Analyzing the public engagement of communication scientists on Twitter. New Media & Society, 22(3), 387-408.
Kalogeropoulos, A., Negredo, S., Picone, I., & Nielsen, R. K. (2017). Who shares and comments on news?: A cross-national comparative analysis of online and social media participation. Social media+ society, 3(4), 2056305117735754..
Keller, T. R., Hase, V., Thaker, J., Mahl, D., & Schäfer, M. S. (2020). News Media Coverage of Climate Change in India 1997–2016: Using automated content analysis to assess themes and topics. Environmental Communication, 14(2), 219-235.
Kellner, D. (2000). Habermas, the public sphere, and democracy: A critical　intervention. Perspectives on Habermas, 1(1), 259-288.
Khan, M. L. (2017). Social media engagement: What motivates user participation and consumption on YouTube?. Computers in human behavior, 66, 236-247.
Kim, C., & Yang, S. U. (2017). Like, comment, and share on Facebook: How each behavior differs from the other. Public Relations Review, 43(2), 441-449.
Kim, J., Lewis, S. C., & Watson, B. R. (2018). The imagined audience for and perceived quality of news comments: Exploring the perceptions of commenters on news sites and on Facebook. Social Media+ Society, 4(1), 2056305118765741.
Kirilenko, A. P., & Stepchenkova, S. O. (2012). Climate change discourse in mass media: application of computer-assisted content analysis. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 2(2), 178-191.
Kirilenko, A. P., & Stepchenkova, S. O. (2014). Public microblogging on climate change: One year of Twitter worldwide. Global environmental change, 26, 171-182
Krippendorff, K. (2011). Computing Krippendorff's alpha-reliability.
Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage publications.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. biometrics, 159-174.
Lee, E. J. (2012). That's not the way it is: How user-generated comments on the news affect perceived media bias. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(1), 32-45.
Leung, L. (2009). User-generated content on the internet: an examination of gratifications, civic engagement and psychological empowerment. New media & society, 11(8), 1327-1347.
Liu, J. C. E., & Zhao, B. (2017). Who speaks for climate change in China? Evidence from Weibo. Climatic change, 140(3-4), 413-422.
Liu, X., Lindquist, E., & Vedlitz, A. (2011). Explaining media and congressional attention to global climate change, 1969-2005: an empirical test of agenda-setting theory. Political Research Quarterly, 64(2), 405-419.
Lombard, M., Snyder‐Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human communication research, 28(4), 587-604.
Manosevitch, E., & Walker, D. (2009, April). Reader comments to online opinion journalism: A space of public deliberation. In International Symposium on Online Journalism (Vol. 10, No. April, pp. 1-30).
Manosevitch, E., & Walker, D. (2009, April). Reader comments to online opinion journalism: A space of public deliberation. In International Symposium on Online Journalism (Vol. 10, No. April, pp. 1-30).
Moser, S. C. (2016). Reflections on climate change communication research and practice in the second decade of the 21st century: what more is there to say?. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 7(3), 345-369.
Murray, S. (2020). Framing a Climate Crisis: A descriptive framing analysis of how Greta Thunberg inspired the masses to take to the streets.
Nadkarni, A., & Hofmann, S. G. (2012). Why do people use Facebook?. Personality and individual differences, 52(3), 243-249.
NASA. (2020/05/11). The Effects of Climate Change. Retreive from GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE: https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
Nerlich, B., Koteyko, N., & Brown, B. (2010). Theory and language of climate change communication. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(1), 97-110
Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). Defining content analysis. Content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Niemeyer, S. (2013). Democracy and climate change: What can deliberative democracy contribute?. Australian Journal of Politics & History, 59(3), 429-448.
Olteanu, A., Castillo, C., Diakopoulos, N., & Aberer, K. (2015, April). Comparing events coverage in online news and social media: The case of climate change. In Ninth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media.
Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The virtual sphere: The internet as a public sphere. New media & society, 4(1), 9-27.
Pearce, W., Brown, B., Nerlich, B., & Koteyko, N. (2015). Communicating climate change: conduits, content, and consensus. Wiley interdisciplinary reviews: Climate change, 6(6), 613-626.
Pearce, W., Niederer, S., Özkula, S. M., & Sánchez Querubín, N. (2019). The social media life of climate change: Platforms, publics, and future imaginaries. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 10(2), e569.
Poell, T. (2009). Conceptualizing forums and blogs as public spheres. Digital Material, edited by MVT Van den Boomen et al, 239-251.
Reicher, S. D., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (1995). A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. European review of social psychology, 6(1), 161-198.
Rowe, I. (2015). Deliberation 2.0: Comparing the deliberative quality of online news user comments across platforms. Journal of broadcasting & electronic media, 59(4), 539-555.
Ryfe, D. M. (2006). Narrative and deliberation in small group forums. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 34(1), 72-93.
Schäfer, M. S. (2012). Online communication on climate change and climate politics: a literature review. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 3(6), 527-543.
Schäfer, M. S., & Schlichting, I. (2014). Media representations of climate change: A meta-analysis of the research field. Environmental Communication, 8(2), 142-160.
Schmidt, A., Ivanova, A., & Schäfer, M. S. (2013). Media attention for climate change around the world: A comparative analysis of newspaper coverage in 27 countries. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 1233-1248.
Schmidt, J. (1998). Civility, enlightenment, and society: Conceptual confusions and Kantian remedies. American Political Science Review, 419-427.
Schoenfeld,A. (1981) .The Environmental Communication Ecosystem A Situation Report. Madison, WI：SMEAC INFORMATION REFERENCE CENTER.
Schudson, M. (1997). Why conversation is not the soul of democracy. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 14(4), 297-309.
Springer, N., Engelmann, I., & Pfaffinger, C. (2015). User comments: Motives and inhibitors to write and read. Information, Communication & Society, 18(7), 798-815.
Steenbergen, M. R., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M., & Steiner, J. (2003). Measuring political deliberation: A discourse quality index. Comparative European Politics, 1(1), 21-48.
Stromer-Galley, J. (2007). Measuring deliberation's content: A coding scheme. Journal of public deliberation, 3(1), 12.
Stromer-Galley, J., & Martinson, A. (2005). Conceptualizing and measuring coherence in online chat. In annual meeting of the International Communication Association, New York, NY.
Sunstein, C. R. (1999). The law of group polarization. University of Chicago Law School, John M. Olin Law & Economics Working Paper, (91).
Thomala, L. L. (2020). Penetration of leading social networks in Taiwan as of 3rd quarter 2019. Retrieve from Statista: https://www.statista.com/statistics/295611/taiwan-social-network-penetration/
Vallone, R. P., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1985). The hostile media phenomenon: biased perception and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beirut massacre. Journal of personality and social psychology, 49(3), 577.
Van Dijck, J. (2013). Engineering sociality in a culture of connectivity. The culture of connectivity: A critical history of social media, 3-23.
Wang, X., Yu, Y., & Lin, L. (2020). Tweeting the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris (COP21): An analysis of a social network and factors determining the network influence. Online Social Networks and Media, 15, 100059.
Weller, K., Bruns, A., Burgess, J., Mahrt, M., & Puschmann, C. (2014). Twitter and society (Vol. 89). Peter Lang.
William L. Hosch (2009). The Web & Communication. Retrieve from: https://www.britannica.com/topic/YouTube
Williams, H. T., 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, 32, 126-138.
World Economic Forum. (2021). The Global Risks Report 2021.
YouTube. (2020). Retrieve from: https://www.youtube.com/　
台視新聞. (2019/09/24). Retrieve from YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8JLo0gmJwk
自由時報. (2019/09/25). Facebook Watch. Retrieve from Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=701644653682260
李美華. (2017). 台灣報業媒體網路平台氣候變遷風險溝通: 2009~ 2016 年的歷時性分析. 中華傳播學刊, (32), 45-90.
林宇玲. (2014). 網路與公共領域: 從審議模式轉向多元公眾模式. 新聞學研究, (118), 55-85.
陳百齡, 鄭宇君, & 陳恭. (2016). 社群媒體資料分析: 特性和歷程的初探. 傳播文化. 第 15 期.
游美惠. (2000). 內容分析, 文本分析與論述分析在社會研究的運用. 調查研究, (8), 5-42.
溫偉群, & 游梓翔. (2018). 社群媒體與口語傳播 (第一版). 台北市: 五南.
新聞雲ETtoday. (2019/09/25). Facebook Watch. Retrieve from Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ETtoday/videos/74187370622634
鄭宇君、陳恭、陳百齡. (2017/12). 社群媒體巨量資料蒐集與分析—以 Facebook 與 Twitter 為例．人文與社會科學簡訊. 擷取自: https://www.most.gov.tw/most/attachments/40f53939-d2c7-4def-944b-1af41b2e474c
盧安邦, & 鄭宇君. (2017). 用方法說故事: 探析電腦輔助文本分析工具在框架研究之應用. 傳播研究與實踐, 7(2), 145-178.
薛安程. (2018). 社群媒體公眾討論、公共領域與審議溝通之研究: 以Facebook新聞留言為例. 慈濟大學傳播學系碩士論文.