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).

中文翻译：

---

怀疑来源：行动者、论坛和气候变化怀疑论的语言

本文调查了一份气候变化逆势报告的参考语料库。我们根据对人为气候变化的认可立场对期刊摘要进行了分类。这些结果与文本内引文分析形成对比。我们在此关注报告编辑所收录的有关气候变化主流主张的论文的作用。我们的结果显示，在背书率以及逆势论据的来源方面存在适度差异，考虑到一般的逆向报告和特别是所呈现的期刊。这些结果表明期刊之间在编辑实践、主题依赖性和一些作者的主场优势方面存在差异。除了文献计量数据，我们额外的修辞分析表明，语言和措辞至少与支持这些主张的参考文献一样重要。气候怀疑论者报告中存在充分理由的怀疑气氛依赖于两个共同作用的普遍因素：关于方法学不确定性的相关信息和不支持主流知识主张的发现 (1)；庄严的言辞，辅以适当的重新情境化和重新解释（2）。