SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Etkileşim / 2026 / Sayı: 17

Climate Information Disorder in the Digital Age: A Thematic Analysis of Posts on the ‘X’ Platform Regarding the Climate Law Enacted in Türkiye

Dijital Çağda İklim Bilgi Düzensizliği: Türkiye’de Yürürlüğe Giren İklim Kanunu’na İlişkin ‘X’ Platformunda Yapılan Paylaşımların Tematik Analizi

Ayşe Seda Aslan(ZONGULDAK BÜLENT ECEVİT ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-4600-1108
Mutluhan Çamur(ZONGULDAK BÜLENT ECEVİT ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-3832-4911
Journal
Etkileşim
Pages
364–395
Publication Date
2026-04-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings indicate that inconsistencies in legal knowledge shape public discourses along political-ideological, socio-economic-environmental and risk-uncertainty axes; these discourses, in turn, are primarily constructed around concerns regarding national sovereignty, economic and ecological anxieties, and conspiracy theories, thereby fuelling climate denial and the erosion of scientific knowledge.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This research aims to analyse posts made on the X platform regarding the climate law, which was submitted to the Turkish Parliament on February 20, 2025, and entered into force after being published in the Official Gazette on July 9, 2025.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this context, posts made on X with the hashtags #NoToClimateLaw, #NoToClimateTax, and #ClimateDeception between April 15 and July 3, when the topic was trending, were collected using the media monitoring system Teleskop.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicate that inconsistencies in legal knowledge shape public discourses along political-ideological, socio-economic-environmental and risk-uncertainty axes; these discourses, in turn, are primarily constructed around concerns regarding national sovereignty, economic and ecological anxieties, and conspiracy theories, thereby fuelling climate denial and the erosion of scientific knowledge.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2025 Verileri
⚙️Variables:iklim bilgi düzensizliği · iklim kanunu · komplo teorisi

Abstract

This research aims to analyse posts made on the X platform regarding the climate law, which was submitted to the Turkish Parliament on February 20, 2025, and entered into force after being published in the Official Gazette on July 9, 2025. It seeks to reveal the narratives around which disinformation and misinformation about the law are shaped. In this context, posts made on X with the hashtags #NoToClimateLaw, #NoToClimateTax, and #ClimateDeception between April 15 and July 3, when the topic was trending, were collected using the media monitoring system Teleskop. Within the scope of the research questions, 1132 posts were examined using the reflective thematic analysis method via the qualitative data analysis software MAXQDA. The findings indicate that inconsistencies in legal knowledge shape public discourses along political-ideological, socio-economic-environmental and risk-uncertainty axes; these discourses, in turn, are primarily constructed around concerns regarding national sovereignty, economic and ecological anxieties, and conspiracy theories, thereby fuelling climate denial and the erosion of scientific knowledge. Based on the findings, it is necessary to develop verification mechanisms, advance science communication, climate communication, and digital media literacy in order to convey environmental and climate policies to society in an accurate, transparent, and scientific manner in the fight against climate change.

Özet

Bu araştırma Türkiye’de 20 Şubat 2025 tarihinde meclise sunulan ve 9 Temmuz 2025’te Resmî Gazete’de yayımlanarak yürürlüğe giren İklim Kanunu’na ilişkin X platformunda yapılan paylaşımları analiz ederek, kanunla ilgili üretilen dezenformasyon ve mezenformasyonların hangi anlatılar etrafında şekillendiğini ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu kapsamda X’te konunun gündem (trend topic) olduğu 15 Nisan ile 3 Temmuz tarihlerinde #İklimKanununaHayır, #İklimTasmasınaHayır, #İklimAldatmacası hashtagları ile yapılan paylaşımlar medya takip sistemi Teleskop aracılığıyla derlenmiştir. Elde edilen veriler arasından belirlenen 1.132 paylaşım nitel veri analiz yazılımı MAXQDA aracılığıyla yansıtıcı tematik analiz yöntemiyle incelenmiştir. Bulgular, kanuna yönelik bilgi düzensizliklerinin kamusal söylemleri politik-ideolojik, sosyo-ekonomik-çevresel ve risk-belirsizlik eksenlerinde şekillendirdiğini; bu söylemlerin ise ağırlıklı olarak ulusal egemenlik kaygıları, ekonomik ve ekolojik endişeler ile komplo teorileri üzerinden kurulup iklim inkârını ve bilimsel bilginin aşınmasını beslediğini göstermektedir. Bulgulardan hareketle iklim değişikliği ile mücadelede, çevre ve iklim politikalarının topluma doğru, şeffaf ve bilimsel bir biçimde aktarılabilmesi için teyit mekanizmalarının geliştirilmesinin, bilim iletişimi, iklim iletişimi ve dijital medya okuryazarlığının yaygınlaştırılmasının gerekli olduğu görülmüştür.

🔖

Cite This Article

Aslan, A. S., Çamur, M. (2026). Climate Information Disorder in the Digital Age: A Thematic Analysis of Posts on the ‘X’ Platform Regarding the Climate Law Enacted in Türkiye. Etkileşim, Sayı: 17, 364–395. https://doi.org/10.32739/etkilesim.2026.9.17.342

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (78)

  1. Aaronovitch, D. (2010). Voodoo histories: How conspiracy theory has shaped modern history. Vintage Books.
  2. Assardo, L. (2023). Dijital tehditleri araştırmak: Trolleme kampanyaları. GIJN. https://gijn.org/tr/kaynak/dijital-tehditleri-arastirmak-trolleme-kampanyalari/
  3. Bąkowicz, K. (2024). Climate disinformation on the internet and social media: Analysis of the phenomenon. Media Biznes Kultura: Dziennikarstwo i Komunikacja Społeczna, 17, 7–18. https://doi.org/10.4467/25442554.MBK.24.014.20888
  4. Bassolas, A., Massachs, J., Cozzo, E., & Vicens, J. (2023). A cross-platform analysis of polarization and echo chambers in climate change discussions. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-34379-6
  5. Beck, U. (2025). Risk toplumu: Başka bir modernliğe doğru (K. Özdoğan ve B. O. Doğan, Çev.). Minotor Kitap.
  6. Biddlestone, M., Azevedo, F., & van der Linden, S. (2022). Climate of conspiracy: A meta-analysis of the consequences of belief in conspiracy theories about climate change. Current Opinion in Psychology, 46, 101390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101390
  7. Bińczyk, E. (2022). The disinformation rhetoric of the twenty-first century. İçinde K. Abriszewski, A. Derra ve A. W. Nowak (Ed.), Polish science and technology studies in the new millennium (Cilt 8, ss. 69–97). Peter Lang. https://doi.org/10.3726/b20008
  8. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  9. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE.
  10. Cann, H. W., & Raymond, L. (2018). Does climate denialism still matter? The prevalence of alternative frames in opposition to climate policy. Environmental Politics, 27(3), 433-454. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2018.1439353
  11. Carson, R. (2021). Sessiz bahar (Ç. Güler, Çev.). Palme Yayıncılık.
  12. Center for Countering Digital Hate. (2024). The new climate denial. https://www.counterhate.com/research/the-new-climate-denial
  13. Cesur, A. A. (2025). Öğrenilmiş şüphe ile bilginin yeniden üretimi: Sosyal medya kullanıcılarının karbon vergisine karşıtlığı üzerine bir araştırma – X platformu örneği. Hitit Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 18(2), 512–532. https://doi.org/10.17218/hititsbd.1634220
  14. Climate Action Against Disinformation (CAAD). (2023a). Climate mis-/disinformation backgrounder. https://caad.info/analysis/briefings/climate-mis-disinformation-backgrounder/
  15. Climate Action Against Disinformation (CAAD). (2023b). Climate of misinformation: Ranking big tech. https://caad.info/analysis/reports/climate-of-misinformation-ranking-big-tech/
  16. Cruz, L., Fagundes, V., Massarani, L., & Oliveira, T. (2025). Dynamics of climate disinformation in Facebook and Instagram posts in Brazil. Comunicação e Sociedade, 47, 25002.
  17. Çetin, S. (2025). İklim krizine karşı Türkiye’de sağ siyasal söylemler: Yeniden Refah Partisi. Moment Dergi, 12(1), 187–210. https://doi.org/10.17572/mj2025.1.187-210
  18. de Gourville, D., Douglas, K. M., & Sutton, R. M. (2025). Denialist vs. warmist climate change conspiracy beliefs: Ideological roots, psychological correlates and environmental implications. British Journal of Psychology, 00, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.70035
  19. Douglas, K. M., & Sutton, R. M. (2015). Climate change: Why the conspiracy theories are dangerous. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 71(2), 98–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0096340215571908
  20. Douglas, K., Sutton, R., Cichocka, A., Ang, J., Deravi, F., Uscinski, J., & Nefes, T. (2019). Why do people adopt conspiracy theories, how are they communicated, and what are their risks? Centre for Research and Evidence on Security Threats. https://crestresearch.ac.uk/projects/conspiracy-theories/
  21. Dunlap, R. E. (2013). Climate change skepticism and denial: An introduction. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(6), 691–698. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213477097
  22. Edvardsson Björnberg, K., Karlsson, M., Gilek, M., & Hansson, S. O. (2017). Climate and environmental science denial: A review of the scientific literature published in 1990–2015. Journal of Cleaner Production, 167, 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.066
  23. Erdoğan, E., & Uyan-Semerci, P. (2020). Hakikat sonrası tartışmalarının gerçek olmayan varsayımlarını ele almak: Akıl, bilim ve demokrasi karşıtlığı. Pasajlar Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2(4), 83–108.
  24. Erdoğan, E., Uyan-Semerci, P., Eyolcu-Kafalı, B., & Çaytaş, Ş. (2022). İnfodemi ve bilgi düzensizlikleri: Kavramlar, nedenler ve çözümler. Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  25. Essien, E. O. (2025). Climate change disinformation on social media: A meta-synthesis on epistemic welfare in the post-truth era. Social Sciences, 14(5), 304. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14050304
  26. Fenoll, V., Alonso-del-Barrio, E., & Gamir-Rios, J. (2024). Anti- and pro-environmental disinformation: Fact-checking Spanish political parties’ discourse. Observatorio (OBS)*, Special Issue, 85–103. https://doi.org/10.15847/obsOBS18520242582
  27. Guida, M. (2008). The Sèvres syndrome and “komplo” theories in the Islamist and secular press. Turkish Studies, 9(1), 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683840701813994
  28. Gürçam, S. (2025). İklim kriziyle mücadele mi, sermaye için piyasa mekanizmaları mı? Türkiye’nin İklim Değişikliği Kanunu teklifi üzerine bir inceleme. Çevre, İklim ve Sürdürülebilirlik, 26(1), 37–52.
  29. Hassan, I., Musa, R. M., Azmi, M. N. L., Abdullah, M. R., & Balogun, A. D. (2022). Exploring denial strategies against climate change across agents and media platforms. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 12(4). https://doi.org/10.30935/ojcmt/12240
  30. Hassan, I., Musa, R. M., Azmi, M. N. L., Abdullah, M. R., & Balogun, A. D. (2023). Analysis of climate change disinformation across types, agents and media platforms. Information Development, 40(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/02666669221148693
  31. Hill, J. M., & Weulen Kranenbarg, M. (2025). Polluted nature, polluted debate: A longitudinal analysis of disinformation around the nitrogen crisis in the Netherlands. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-025-09624-1
  32. Howard, P. N., Woolley, S., & Calo, R. (2018). Algorithms, bots, and political communication in the US 2016 election: The challenge of automated political communication for election law and
  33. administration. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 15(2), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2018.1448735
  34. Institute for Global Sustainability (tarih yok). How climate disinformation spreads through social media sites: Twitter. Boston University. https://www.bu.edu/igs/research/projects/climate-disinformation-initiative/twitter/
  35. İklim Ağı (2025, 1 Ağustos). İklim Ağı: Meclis'te kabul edilen İklim Kanunu ne doğayı ne insanı ne de iklimi koruyabilir. https://iklimagi.org/iklim-agi-mecliste-kabul-edilen-iklim-kanunu-ne-dogayi-ne-insani-ne-de-iklimi-koruyabilir/
  36. İklim Ağı (2025, 25 Şubat). İklim Ağı'ndan TBMM'ye sunulan İklim Kanun Teklifine yönelik açıklama. https://iklimagi.org/iklim-agindan-tbmmye-sunulan-iklim-kanun-teklifine-yonelik-aciklama/
  37. İklim Haber. (2025, 3 Temmuz). İklim Kanunu teklifi kabul edildi. https://www.iklimhaber.org/iklim-kanunu-teklifi-kabul-edildi/
  38. Jacques, P. J., & Knox, C. C. (2016). Hurricanes and hegemony: A qualitative analysis of micro-level climate change denial discourses. Environmental Politics, 25(5), 831–852. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2016.1189233
  39. Koçyiğit, A., & Koçyiğit, M. (2023). Dijital çağda sosyal medyada dezenformasyonla mücadele. İçinde A. B. Darı (Ed.), Dijital çağda medya araştırmaları (ss. 177–202). Paradigma Akademi.
  40. Korkmaz, B. (2025). İklim Kanunu neden komplo teorilerinin odağında? Teyit. https://teyit.org/dosya/iklim-kanunu-neden-komplo-teorilerinin-odaginda
  41. Köse, İ. (2018). İklim değişikliği müzakereleri: Türkiye’nin Paris Anlaşması’nı imza süreci. Ege Stratejik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 9(1), 55–81. https://doi.org/10.18354/esam.329348
  42. Kunt, R. (2025). Komplo teorileri gölgesinde iklim kanunu teklifi. Doğruluk Payı. https://www.dogrulukpayi.com/bulten/komplo-teorileri-golgesinde-iklim-kanunu-teklifi
  43. Kurnaz, L. (2022). Son buzul erimeden: İklim değişikliği hakkında merak ettiğiniz her şey. Doğan Kitap.
  44. Lamb, W. F., Mattioli, G., Levi, S., Timmons Roberts, J., Capstick, S., Creutzig, F., Minx, J. C., Müller-Hansen, F., Culhane, T., & Steinberger, J. K. (2020). Discourses of climate delay. Global Sustainability, 3(e17), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.13
  45. Lewandowsky, S., & Cook, J. (2020). Komplo teorileri el kitabı (C. Başaçek, Çev.). Teyit. http://sks.to/conspiracy
  46. Luczak, J. (2023). Climate denialism bullshit is harmful. Asian Journal of Philosophy, 2(7). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44204-023-00062-6
  47. Lyon, T. P., & Montgomery, A. W. (2015). The means and end of greenwash. Organization & Environment, 28(2), 223-249. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615575332
  48. Mahmoudi, A., Jemielniak, D., & Ciechanowski, L. (2025). Characteristics of two polarized groups in online social networks’ controversial discourse. Journal of Computational Social Science, 8(22), 2–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-024-00350-y
  49. Mann, M. E. (2012). The hockey stick and the climate wars: Dispatches from the front lines. Columbia University Press.
  50. Meddeb, P., Ruseti, S., Dascalu, M., Terian, S.-M., & Travadel, S. (2022). Counteracting French fake news on climate change by using language models. Sustainability, 14, 11724. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811724
  51. Moreno-Cabanillas, A., Castillero-Ostio, E., & Serna-Ortega, I. (2024). Digital disinformation strategies of European climate change obstructionist think tanks. Frontiers in Communication, 9, 1470343. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2024.1470343
  52. Oğuz, M. C. (2024). Komplo güdümlü siyasal partilerin yükselişi ve Türkiye’den Yeniden Refah Partisi örneği. Politik Ekonomik Kuram, 8(3), 848–862. https://doi.org/10.30586/pek.1526828
  53. Özışık, F. U. (2020). Türkiye’de bir kamu politikası olarak iklim değişikliği: Tarihsel gelişim, uluslararası müzakereler, yapısal ve idari sorunlar çerçevesinde bir değerlendirme. Marmara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilimler Dergisi, 8(1), 66-96. https://doi.org/10.14782/marmarasbd.712908
  54. Palau-Samplo, D., & Flores, P. C. (2024). Fuelling climate change disinformation: Global narratives distorting environmental risks in North America, Europe and Latin America. Catalan Journal of Communication and Cultural Studies, 16(2), 217-236. https://doi.org/10.1386/cjcs_00110_1
  55. Poberezhskaya, M. (2025). Conspiracies as one of the dangers of online climate change communication: Origins, spread, and impact. İçinde A. Anderson ve C. Howarth (Ed.), Routledge handbook on climate crisis communication. Routledge.
  56. Rahmstorf, S. (2004). The climate sceptics. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.
  57. Resmî Gazete. (2025, 9 Temmuz). 7552 sayılı İklim Kanunu. Resmî Gazete (Sayı: 32951). https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2025/07/20250709-1.htm
  58. Strudwicke, I., & Grant, W. J. (2020). #JunkScience: Investigating pseudoscience disinformation in the Russian Internet Research Agency tweets. Public Understanding of Science, 29(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520935071
  59. T.C. Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı. (2018). Türkiye’nin yedinci ulusal bildirimi. https://webdosya.csb.gov.tr/db/cygm/icerikler/yed-nc--ulusal-b-ld-r-m-20190909092640.pdf
  60. Teleskop. (tarih yok). Teleskop [Web sitesi]. https://teleskop.app/
  61. Tomassi, A., Falegnami, A., & Romano, E. (2025). Disinformation in the digital age: Climate change, media dynamics, and strategies for resilience. Publications, 13(2), 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications13020024
  62. Treen, K., Williams, H. T. P., & O’Neill, S. J. (2020). Online misinformation about climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 11(7), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.665
  63. Turkish Law Blog. (t.y.). Türkiye's first climate law published. https://turkishlawblog.com/insights/detail/turkiyes-first-climate-law-published
  64. Türk Dil Kurumu (TDK). (2025). Türkçe güncel sözlük. https://sozluk.gov.tr/
  65. Tyagi, A., & Carley, K. M. (2021). Climate change conspiracy theories on social media (arXiv:2107.03318). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2107.03318
  66. Ulusoy, H. (2024). İklim dezenformasyonunun X platformunda izini sürmek: #iklimyalanı ve #yalaniklimi hashtag’li içerikler üzerine bir araştırma. İçinde A. E. Dingin (Ed.), Sosyal medya ve dezenformasyon üzerine incelemeler (ss. 161–181). Literatürk Academia.
  67. United Nations Development Programme. (2025). What are climate misinformation and disinformation—and how can we tackle them? UNDP Climate Promise. https://climatepromise.undp.org/news-and-stories/what-are-climate-misinformation-and-disinformation-and-how-can-we-tackle-them
  68. United Nations General Assembly. (2022). Countering disinformation for the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms: Report of the Secretary-General (A/77/287). https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3987886?v=pdf
  69. Uscinski, J. E. (2020). Conspiracy theories: A primer. Rowman & Littlefield.
  70. Uscinski, J. E., Douglas, K., & Lewandowsky, S. (2017). Climate change conspiracy theories. İçinde Oxford research encyclopedia of climate science. Oxford University Press.
  71. Vallström, V., & Törnberg, A. (2025). From YouTube to Parliament: the dual role of political influencers in shaping climate change discourse. Environmental Sociology, 12(1), 48-63. https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2025.2475519
  72. van Prooijen, J.-W., Krouwel, A. P. M., & Pollet, T. V. (2015). Political extremism predicts belief in conspiracy theories. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(5), 570–578. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614567356
  73. van Prooijen, J.-W., Šrol, J., & Maglić, M. (2025). How belief in conspiracy theories could harm sustainability. Nature Human Behaviour, 9(9), 1770–1779. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02243-0
  74. Wardle, C. (2019). Understanding information disorder. First Draft.
  75. Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policymaking. Council of Europe. https://www.coe.int
  76. World Economic Forum. (2025). The global risks report 2025 (20th ed.). https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2025/
  77. Yang, A. (2025). Exploring the stability and social influence dynamics in climate change deniers’ disinformation network: A longitudinal study. The Information Society, 41(4), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2025.2498507
  78. Yantseva, V. (2025). Climate change denial and ideology in Swedish online media: Measuring ideology change using a computational approach. Journal of Computational Social Science, 8(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-024-00343-x