text: However, diﬀerences between two discourses were not eliminated. Even though two discourses 
  showed more similarities in the rank order of key concepts, the QAP analysis of two matrices of 
  semantic network showed that two discourses still embody distinct public perceptions of climate issues 
  by associating these hashtags in diﬀerent manners. 
  
  To be speciﬁc, although “ipcc”, “cop”, and “un” were mentioned in both discourses (yellow 
  in Figures 3 and 4) in earlier years, the clusters to which they belonged had signiﬁcantly diﬀerent 
  meanings. As mentioned in the results section, these hashtags were associated with a series of scientiﬁc 
  hashtags in the climate change discourse, appealing to global eﬀorts. In the global warming discourse, 
  they were clustered with “hoax” and “frame”, showing lack of belief in climate issue facts and hesitation 
  about global eﬀorts. More recently, when discussions about temperature, politics, and hesitation 
  signiﬁcantly shrank in the global warming discourse, the wo discourses showed more similarities about 
  the importance of scientiﬁc concepts according to Figure 5a,b. However, links between global eﬀorts 
  and scientiﬁc facts were not constructed in the global warming discourse. According to a network 
  model for cognition, the lack of associations means fewer psychological activations will spread to 