In a February 2011 paper entitled "Talking Past Each Other? Cultural Framing of Skeptical and Convinced Logics in the Climate Change Debate," author Andrew John Hoffman of the University of Michigan's Stephen M. Ross School of Business and the School of Natural Resources & Environment "analyzes the extent to which two institutional logics around climate change - the climate change "convinced" and climate change "skeptical" logics - are truly competing or talking past each other in a way that can be described as a logic schism."
HyperRESEARCH was used to code and analyze the nearly 800 source documents analyzed in the study. As noted in the paper's abstract, "The implications of such a logic schism is a shift from an integrative debate focused on addressing interests to a distributive battle over concessionary agreements with each side pursuing its goals by demonizing the other. Avoiding such an outcome requires the activation of, as yet, dormant "broker" frames (technology, religion and national security), the redefinition of existing ones (science, economics, risk, ideology) and the engagement of effective "climate brokers" to deliver them."
The full abstract and more information about the paper can be found online here.