Will Thinking in Collective Terms Lead to More Climate Action? Meh.

Man-made climate change is real. So how do we encourage people to do something about it? One new paper suggests people are more willing to donate money toward action when thinking about the problem in collective terms. And yet, one wonders if this is really true. Worse, does it even matter?

The study was conducted by Nick Obradovich and Scott Guenther, researchers from the University of California, San Diego, and published this week in the journal Climatic Change. Both political scientists (not climate scientists), their focus was on, as their title suggests, how "Collective responsibility amplifies mitigation behaviors." In short, they found that people were more likely to donate more money to environmental causes when they thought about the problem in collective terms rather than when the appeal was to personal responsibility.

I won't go into the details of the study because others have done that already. There is a great discussion of the study on the blog ClimateProgress. I encourage you to read it, and if you have access to the journal Climatic Change (it's behind a subscription firewall), please read the original paper.

I also am not going to question the veracity of the methods or conclusions of the paper; that I'll leave to others. The goal of my piece is to wonder how much the study even matters.

To begin with, the study group consisted of Audubon Society members, who, not surprisingly, are more likely to acknowledge the reality of man-made climate change and be willing to do something about it. They were also "giving" money that had been handed to them, so weren't even donating out of their own pocket. Nothing wrong with these experimental methods for the purposes of the study, but they don't reflect the realities of where climate action is needed.

So let's jump to the crux of the problem. Yes, environmentally aware citizens are more likely to support taking action about climate change. But the issue here is how to get less environmentally aware, and even more importantly, environmentally antagonistic, citizens to take action. Can the results of the study inform that question?

Okay, maybe. The study does say that framing the problem in collective terms may be more effective than framing it in personal responsibility terms, so maybe if we somehow focus on how we can all play a collective role in changing our behaviors we might be more successful with climate deniers than finger-pointing. At least in general terms this is consistent with the views of a well-known climate communication expert with whom I recently had a conversation. He felt that finger-pointing merely triggered human defense mechanisms: telling someone they personally have to change (or are wrong) causes them to dig trenches and protect their position, reality be damned.

The problem is, how exactly do we frame the need for climate change action in collective terms that is different from how we're doing it now? It's not like the only message out there is "It's your fault, you must take personal responsibility to fix it." Sure, there is an element of that but mostly it's a matter of we, the United States and the world, collectively, need to, and actually do, take action to reduce carbon emissions and shift to more renewable energy resources. We, the United States and the world, just signed a major commitment with the Paris climate agreement. We are already taking action.

So the problem isn't that we aren't already acting collectively, it's that we could be acting much faster and more definitively if there wasn't an organized denial of the science that, collectively, encourages us to act.

As this page has noted often, there are lobbying groups whose purpose on Earth is to block policy actions that might bring the costs of doing business back onto the corporations who profit from pushing those costs onto society, i.e., us, the collective taxpayers. Collectively we all pay for what fossil fuel combustion is doing to our climate (we also pay for vast amounts of other corporate pollution that is "externalized" from the "free market" system). These professional lobbyists know that their corporate sponsors are causing the climate to warm and don't care; their job is to protect corporate profits and pay various lobbying organizations and their front groups to use any means necessary to block regulatory action.

Action is also held back by amateur deniers who refuse any information that conflicts with their ideological, political, or egotistical pre-conceptions. These folks include both those generally ignorant of the facts and those who are just straight out intellectually dishonest. The latter deniers tend not only to rely on lobbyist and political sources for their "science," they also actively choose to be dishonest in their interactions with anyone who challenges their mental insecurities.

Where all this gets us is to the realization that in communicating science to the public, and getting the public to act - collectively and/or personally - isn't a once-size-fits-all solution. Different methods of communicating with the public will be needed. As the study discussed above suggests, framing in collective terms may be successful with those who are already environmentally sensitive, and, perhaps to a lesser extent, with some groups of more antagonist citizens. Such framing may be a waste of time on lobbyists and individuals whose professional jobs require them to ignore reality in favor of profits, or with amateur deniers whose intellectual insecurities cause them to engage in patently dishonest behaviors.

On the other hand, those citizens who have merely been misled by professional and amateur denier networks will likely be quicker to shift to action once they perceive their self-selected "group" is ready to take action.

And that is where science communicators and advocates for action need to focus their attention.

[Image courtesy of http://www.buildingclimatesolutions.org/images/279806/350x0/scale/communicating_climate.jpg]

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-05-climate-people.html#jCp

the study finds that people are willing to donate up to 50 percent more cash to the cause when thinking about the problem in collective terms.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-05-climate-people.html#jCp

Science Communication - How to Deal with Trolls on Facebook

While all science is done via peer-reviewed research papers, scientific conferences, and active communication with other scientists, there is the illusion of scientific "debate" on social media like Facebook, Twitter, and the blogosphere. Blogs can be used to help communicate the science to others, including the general public, but blogs are only an extension of the science, not the science itself, largely because anyone at any time can say whatever they want on blogs, and too often do.

After observing some of the "debates" that occur on Facebook, it was refreshing to see an article on the blog Science Communication Media called "Constructively dealing with trolls in science communication." As I've been saying for a long time, the short answer is - don't.

Ignore: As with bullies, the best way to respond to a troll is to ignore them. It tells the troll they have no power or influence over their target and most of them will quickly move back under their bridge.

This is especially on sites like Facebook. Why? Because Facebook has designed their algorithm to keep "active" posts at the top of the feed for any given page. The same goes for any comment in the discussion thread.

And guess what is "active." Yup, commenting and "Liking" (and now, other "reactions"), the very thing that trolls desperately want you to do. Every time you comment, whether it be to refute or insult the troll, the more their post or comment gets shown to more people, who comment or "react," which goes on ad infinitum.

That is the entire goal of the troll. To feed their constant need for attention and obviate their mental insecurities. This all may be good for assuaging a troll's ego, but it's a waste of time for any honest person interested in discussion of science because the troll has no interest in learning, just trolling.

I've advocated blocking trolls (which, by the way, includes every climate denier who constantly floods Facebook climate pages with the same falsehoods over and over). The author of the "Constructively dealing with trolls" piece agrees.

Block buttons exist for a reason: The other simple response to trolls is to block them. No, seriously, block them. Blocking isn’t censorship or an admission of defeat – it’s simply a filter, in the same way we install ad blockers on browsers or choose not to tune into shows we don’t like. It’s so disappointing when I see scientists and other reasonable professionals waste their time responding to trolls.

Recently an otherwise well-meaning commenter on Facebook argued that blocking trolls merely blocks you from seeing them but those trolls can "converse" with anyone else who comes to the comment string. While that's true, the reason for blocking them goes well beyond that limited thinking. First, when you block them, you stop wasting your time with people whose entire purpose is to get you to engage so that their post or comment will stay at the top and be seen. That means you can spend all your valuable Facebook time posting and supporting posts that accurately communicate the science rather than unintentionally promoting misinformation. That's a win right there. Second, if all honest commenters block the troll then the troll will only be seen by random people who happen to catch the post as soon as it is posted. Those people will either 1) roll their eyes and move on, thus causing the post to immediately disappear in the thread (especially if new, accurate, posts are added by honest people), or 2) comment but quickly identify the person as a troll and block them too.

This is best summed up by one of my favorite paragraphs in the article:

Minimize responses – Arguing with a troll is like mud wrestling with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig enjoys it. Trolls thrive off provoking people, so ignoring them is usually the best way to get them to move on.

Indeed, as I've said before, engaging with trolls creates the illusion of debate, of discussion, of disagreement. What it does is misinform and disinform the reader. By engaging with trolls (e.g., climate deniers) we are doing a disservice to readers who honestly want to understand the state-of-the-science. We are violating the implied essence of the Hippocratic oath - first do no harm. We do harm if we contribute to misinforming the populace.

The article is well worth reading in its entirety and contains many other helpful gems of wisdom. It's called "Constructively dealing with trolls in science communication."


And yes, the pig wrestling picture comes off the blog (though I don't know if that is the original source).

American Public Wants Science Debates, With a Caveat

A new poll out concludes that "an overwhelming majority of Americans (87%) say it is important that candidates for President and Congress have a basic understanding of the science informing public policy issues." This belief is bipartisan, with both Democratic and Republican voters (as well as Independents) agreeing that in our modern age science has a large and necessary role in making policy. But there are some caveats.

The poll was commissioned by ResearchAmerica (a polling organization) and ScienceDebate.org (a non-profit organization). Analysis of the data collected from over 1000 U.S. adults was done by Zogby Analytics.

Results show a clear desire by the American public for presidential candidates and members of Congress to include science in their decision-making. You can see a PDF of the summary slides at this URL. (Be sure to scroll down to see all the graphs and tables.) There are a few take-away lessons from the poll.

First, a vast majority of the public believe that public policy must be based on the best available science.

The public also believes that candidates should be required to have a basic understanding of the science necessary to govern:

And that majority is (somewhat) non-partisan, with Democrats, Republicans, and even Independents agreeing that basic science understanding is important.

As the graph above shows, Democrats are somewhat more likely to believe science understanding is necessary (92% [very + somewhat important]) than Republicans (90%) and Independents (79%). These trends are reflected in most of the other graphs in the study. (see PDF for full results).

What does this all mean?

The main messages from the poll are that Americans believe science is important, that it should inform policy decisions, and that the presidential and congressional candidates have an obligation to have at least a basic understanding of the relevant science needed for decision-making. These beliefs are held across all Americans no matter what their party affiliation.

At least that is what they say.

The reality is much more revealing. While the vast majority of the public proclaims that public policies should be based on the best available science (77%), less than half of that same public (45%) believe they are even somewhat informed about the positions of the candidates on science.

Furthermore, what people are saying in response to poll questions doesn't appear to accurately reflect their voting habits. In the poll, strong majorities of both Republicans and Democrats say they believe in science and that candidates should too, but that clearly isn't the case in real life. For example, all the Republican candidates for President have repeatedly and aggressively touted their disdain for climate science, offering up various forms of denial as a matter of course. Even those who previously supported action and whose home states are most at risk (e.g., Florida, Louisiana, New York, California) have denied the science. And yet they lead the polls. Clearly Republican voters answer questions differently than they demand from their candidates.

One note about the "Independents." In many of the bar graphs splitting out responses by party, Independents often show less support for science than Republicans. At first this would appear counter-intuitive, but it reflects a change in how people identify themselves. In the past, "Independents" were generally the more moderate voters who didn't wholesale identify with either the Democratic or Republican parties, and may vote either way depending on the candidates. Today the number of voters who fit this description is shrinking. In our hyperpartisan era, a growing percentage of self-identified "Independents" are actually the more extreme wings of the two parties. They may be "tea partiers" and libertarians who believe the Republican party is too moderate (yes, you read that correctly). The mainstream party to these people are RINO (Republican in Name Only), and so they identify themselves as "Independent" even though the chances of them ever voting for Democratic candidates are close to nil. To a much lesser extent, "Independents" may also include the more extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party (who disdain DINOs), or the anti-science folks such as anti-vaxxers. While those on the extreme wing represent a small percentage of the Democratic party and their wackier views are generally not incorporated into the Democratic platform, the extreme wing of the Republican party now IS the Republican party, with its most egregiously extreme anti-science views driving the entire platform and actions of the party. [For a good review of the political state of affairs, check out Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein's book It's Even Worse Than it Looks.]

What should we do about it?

While in the responses to the poll questions Americans say they want science, they also admit to not really understanding science; continue to be misinformed about climate science, GMOs, vaccines, and other science important for decision-making; and about half the country overwhelmingly supports candidates who fundamentally deny even basic scientific principles. Some of this can be attributed to the extreme partisanship evident in today's politics, as evidenced by Republicans viciously attacking their own policy proposals as soon as President Obama and the Democrats agree to them. But some of it is because the majority of Americans don't even know the candidates views on science-based policy initiatives.

Americans strongly agree that presidential candidates should be required to participate in a science-based debate. At least 86% of respondents strongly or somewhat agreed with this proposal. ScienceDebate.org (one of the organizations that commissioned the independent poll) has worked hard to have candidates participate (see here for more information of past participation). Candidates would have a chance to present their proposals for addressing policy needs presented by such issues as climate change that are inherently based on science. The public would then be able to make informed choices.

Finally, as the above graph shows, Americans overwhelmingly believe that scientists should engage directly with the public and inform elected officials about scientific research that impacts decision-making. This has been a theme for The Dake Page for a long time.

It's time for a Science Debate.

Flight Behavior - Communicating Science Through Fiction

Periodically I review books that have a science or science communication flavor. As might be expected, these normally are non-fiction books. This week I'm reviewing a fiction book called Flight Behavior, which touches not only on the science but on communication of science, especially when local beliefs are predisposed to deny that science.

Flight Behavior by Barbara Kingsolver

I can relate to Ovid Byron. He is the scientist in Barbara Kingsolver's Flight Behavior, which I can say is one of the most extraordinary books I've read in a long time.

Byron isn't the main character. That would be Dellarobia Turnbow, a farmer's wife trying to make ends meet at the Tennessee end of Appalachia. Kingsolver successfully integrates valuable insights into marriage, country life, sheep-raising, and religion with the extraordinary ecology of Monarch butterflies thrust into potential extinction by the changing forces of climate. All in a storyline that keeps you devouring one page after another.

As an ecological scientist myself, I was fascinated by the interweaving of real scientific study with the evolving lives of the people simply trying to raise their kids and put food on the table. This interweaving is what makes the book so valuable.

And valuable it is as an example of science communication. That isn't necessarily Kingsolver's goal, but she succeeds in communicating the science of the butterflies in language most scientists rarely achieve, and much more effectively. She captures the thought processes and priorities that influence how people take in new information, especially information they find uncomfortable or disruptive to their lifestyle. 

At one point late in the book Kingsolver has a character relate the problems of communicating information when that informaiton comes from "outsiders." This is best summed up in one quote:

"The key thing is, once you're talking identity, you can't just lecture that out of people. The condescension of outsiders won't diminish it. That just galvanizes it."

Scientists would do well to read and understand the writing in this book as they strive to communicate man-made climate change and other scientific issues to the public. 

While my review above is biased toward the scientific element, the book also works incredibly well as a relationship story...and a family story...and a community story. 

I most highly recommend the book for all readers.

Communicating Climate Science - The Series

A few months ago I published a series of posts on communicating climate science, and science in general, to three target audiences. Because of its popularity I've decided to create this compilation article to bring all of the articles in the series to one place.

The first post began by summarizing the four steps most scientists go through to produce the science to be communicated: Do research, Analyze the data, Attend scientific conferences, and Publish in a peer-reviewed journal. [You can read more about the peer-review process in last week's article.] But communicating the science takes more than getting the word out to other scientists in your own field, so this first post also introduced the idea of there being three distinct target audiences with whom scientists need to communicate. They were 1) Scientists in other fields, 2) Policy-makers, and 3) the Public. Communicating to each must be done in different ways.

In the second post I examined how climate scientists can reach out to scientists in other fields. While training in other sciences makes it more likely these people can understand a more technically-based discussion, they may still not be familiar with the very specific technical jargon that springs up in every profession. Thus, this article offers some suggestions as to how to reach out to other scientists.

The third post of the series looked at how climate scientists can communicate the science to policy-makers. We all know that science doesn't always drive policy, even though it should. Politicians and regulators have to work within an environment that is both political and beset with broader stakeholders. Which is why it is so critical for scientists to make sure policy-makers have a correct understanding of the science, and why the should be held accountable for using the correct science for making policy. [Hint: Tossing snowballs to deny climate change is not using the correct science for making policy.] Among other communication tips is reaching out directly to constituents.

The final post - and perhaps the most important of the series - looks at how scientists can communicate the science to the public. While the most critical, it is also the one that most scientists probably have spent the least time trying to do. Frankly, it's hard not to fall back on jargon no one can understand, or provide so many details that the eyes of everyone in the room start to glass over. This article gives some useful tips on how to reach out to the public, including speaking at libraries, clubs, schools, and churches; making yourself available to the media; teaching a MOOC; and even becoming the star of a TV show (or more likely, your own YouTube channel).

Each of these posts provides additional tips and links to more information. While we scientists tend to get lost in our "ivory towers" (or more accurately, basement laboratories and mud-filled field sites), it's critical that we take an active role in making sure the three audiences - other scientists, policy-makers, and the public - understand the science so they can make informed decisions.

How Climate Scientists Can Communicate the Science to the Public

Last week we took a look at how climate scientists can communicate the science to policy-makers, so today in Part 3 we'll look at how scientists can communicate directly with the public. Together these are a three-part series on how to communicate climate science to all three target audiences - other scientists, policy-makers, and the public.

Communicating with the public is actually the most important of the three target audiences, and the one that scientists are least likely to have spent much time doing in their careers. And that's a shame because policymakers (notwithstanding the disproportionate influence of lobbyists and rich campaign donors) are most influenced by public opinion. It is the public who are the real drivers of change. It is they who give policymakers permission (or pressure) to take action. If enough of their constituents demand action, they will act.

But reaching out to the public is inherently more difficult for scientists. Scientists, like all professionals, have usually spent considerable time (and expense) getting specific education, training, and life experience in their area of expertise than the general public. In these days of specialization it seems we all have our expertise, whether it be in some climate related science, economics, brain surgery, law, plumbing, or bridge design. Each field builds up its own set of jargon, technical words that have specific meanings within their field but may have no meaning to anyone outside that field (or worse, mean something completely different outside the field).

So it's critical to reach out to the public, but scientists have to do so in ways that can be understood and are meaningful. Here are a few examples, though this by no means should be considered an exhaustive list:

1) Speak at libraries, churches, schools, etc.: Talk about science in a church? Of course. I was recently in a church whose stained glass windows included one celebrating several of our greatest scientists - Albert Einstein, George Washington Carver, and others. Libraries, churches, and schools all have one thing in common - they are places where the community comes together to learn. Off to give a talk about your area of specialty.

2) Drop the jargon: For the above and any time you're talking to the public, avoid technical jargon like the plague. Don't say "anthropogenic climate change," say "man-made climate change" or even just "global warming." Learn, and then keep in mind, how the public understands the words you will use. If you must use some technical-sounding terminology (like, for instance, the word "terminology"), then explain it briefly and clearly. Don't belabor the minute details that are only important to other scientists, just give them the basic information so they understand it. Trust me, if they want more detail they will ask you for it in the Q&A.

3) Teach a class or a MOOC: This is especially good when you have a community college or a "lifetime learning" opportunity. People will sign up to learn and you can teach at the level of the participants. Face-to-face in a classroom situation is always a good way to build community rapport, but these days you can teach online, either by yourself or through a MOOC (Massive Open Online Course) organized through Coursera, edX, or similar organization. As this post goes live there is a MOOC being taught by John Cook and others called "Making Sense of Climate Denial."

4) Make yourself available to the media: Most of the public will get their science via some form of media. For some this is the network news or cable news (or cable newsertainment) programs, but more and more it is through reading blogs. So start a blog. But also reach out to the relevant journalists and science writers in the field. Most traditional media outlets have cut so far back on science-trained journalists, along with shaving publication times from days to mere instants, so journalists trying to write science pieces will need rapid responses and clear information. Learn how to provide it (there are some good suggestions in the book "Am I Making Myself Clear?").

5) Do a TV show: Granted, this opportunity isn't available to anyone, but if you have the panache of Neil deGrasse Tyson or the quirkiness of Bill Nye the Science Guy, go for it. Start on YouTube. Put together some short videos about the science of your specialty; use some cool graphics and music (make sure you have copyright permissions!), and post them. Just don't be boring. People hate boring, and frankly, people think scientists are boring. Have some fun and the public will have fun too. Meanwhile, the public will be learning a thing or two about the science.

Which gets us back to where we began. Making sure the public has an accurate understanding of the science is the first step in getting them to educate their legislative bodies and other policy-makers that action is necessary. As noted in last week's post, the more people in Oklahoma know how climate change affects their state, the more likely they will want their representatives to represent them. The same with people in Florida understanding what rising sea level will do their state, and Californians understanding what how El Nino/La Nina impacts will accentuate their water woes.

The public deserves to understand the science enough to demand appropriate action. Scientists have an obligation to make sure they reach out to the public.

How Climate Scientists Can Communicate the Science to Policymakers

Last week we took a look at how climate scientists can communicate the science to scientists in other fields. That was Part 1 of a three-part series on how to communicate climate science to all three target audiences - other scientists, policy-makers, and the public.Today in Part 2 we'll look at how scientists can communicate with policy-makers.

Why this is so important should be self-evident. Policy-makers - Congressmen, Presidents, Executive Agencies (like EPA), and their equivalents at state and international levels - are the ones charged with determining the correct policies needed to address the unequivocal science of man-made climate change. Sure, virtually all the candidates from a particular party who want to be president have offered up various versions of denying the science and/or have argued no action is necessary, but the fact is the science is so unequivocal that even that particular party will have to take action. So how do scientists adequately communicate the science to these policy-makers and policy-maker wannabes?

Obviously this starts with having a clear understanding of the science, something we've talked about in previous posts. Let's assume that's the case. Here are some things that climate scientists can do in an effort to reach out to policy-makers:

1) Write white papers: But keep them short, preferably bullet points. Despite the conventional wisdom, policy-makers are busy people who spend many hours keeping up with debates with colleagues on the Hill (for example) while maintaining contact with constituents back home (not to mention all those fundraisers with lobbyists and supporters). They are not going to be reading any actual scientific literature, nor would they likely understand it if they tried. [Note: by "they," I mean their staffs.] So write shorter white papers, again with a lot of white paper and bullet points, that succinctly summarize the main points and gist of the science. As much as you think policy-makers need the details, they don't. All they need are the basics so that they can grasp the unequivocal nature of the data and conclusions.

One caveat on this point. Some policy-makers, e.g., regulators or science-trained legislators, will want more detail and will ask tons of pertinent questions. When you find one of these by all means be ready to devote significant effort to accurately and clearly keep them informed of the science. As I write this the name Sheldon Whitehouse, Senator (D-RI) immediately pops into mind.

2) Comment on relevant legislation: There are several facets of this that I'll lump into one line item. State and Federal legislators often propose bills or make speeches (see "Sheldon Whitehouse" above) that may or may not ever make it into law. Get your comments on the record. At the federal level there is a docket for most legislative actions so as a scientist you should look for opportunities to put the science on record. This also holds true for proposed regulatory actions. The USEPA, for example, has various rules and regulations related to climate-influenced action; put your comments and a summary of the data in the record.

3) Reach out to legislative staff: While each legislator (especially US Congressmen/women and Senators) have their own staffs, they each also sit on several committees, and those committees each have a staff. Speak to them. Send them comments. Offer your expertise. Last year a group of climate scientists offered to give a briefing to Florida Governor Rick Scott, and after some public pressure, he let them come in and explain the basics of climate science (which he promptly ignored). In a similar vein, both the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry and the Society of Toxicology arranged for briefings with Congressional committee staff charged with modernizing the nation's top chemical control law (TSCA). Will staff always pay attention? Not always. But they won't know at all if you don't offer.

4) Testify at hearings: This is easier said than done since you have to be invited by one of the party's in order to get on the agenda. This is where making the effort to get information in front of key regulators, legislators, and their staffs pays off. But here's the kicker, once you get an opportunity to testify, don't waste it by simply rattling off the science they should already know. Certain legislators will "play dumb" or make statements that are miming the usual talking points provided by lobbyists. Don't let them get away with it - tell them when they are wrong, and do it directly. [Secretary of State John Kerry did it right, for example, when he explained to Senator Marco Rubio that Rubio's much stated beliefs about the Iran talks were "absolutely wrong." (see about 2 minutes in)]

A note on this point as well. There is a certain decorum expected in all legislative and regulatory proceedings, so I'm not advocating yelling "you lie" when someone, well, lies. But as scientists and citizens we all have an obligation to make sure policy-makers understand the science correctly, and that means calling them out when they repeat known falsehoods. They simply don't repeat the same talking point verbatim over and over by accident, so don't let them get away with it. The danger of directly calling them on such things brings with it the likelihood that you'll find it hard to be asked to testify to that committee again, but if that is what you're worried about then you will be doing a disservice to the science and the public.

5) Reach out to their constituents: Legislators are supposed to act in the best interests of their constituents, but all too often they conflate "lobbyists/campaign funders" with "constituents." Sadly this is a result of our current political system, but if enough of their constituents press them for action, they will be forced to take action. So reach out to the public in those states, for example, where Senators or Representatives are hurting the voters due to their denial of the science and subsequent need for action. An obvious example, one of many, is Oklahoma, which faces increasing drought risk and economic instability from climate-related changes even as their senior Senator pitches snowballs and quotes scripture in his denial of the science. If you live in Oklahoma and your area of expertise is impact of climate change on drought, or conversely, understand how wind or solar can be employed in Oklahoma, then make sure Oklahomans know it.

Next week's post will take a more in-depth look at how scientists can reach out to the public.

How Climate Scientists Can Communicate the Science to Scientists in Other Fields

A few weeks ago we talked about how to communicate climate science to all three target audiences - other scientists, policy-makers, and the public. We touched on how scientists "do science," i.e., through research, data analysis, conference attendance, and scientific publication. Today we'll take a closer look at how scientists can communicate climate science to other scientists, including those scientists who specialize in other fields.

1) Publish the Research: As already noted, the main way for scientists to communicate the science to other scientists is to publish it in peer-reviewed journals. Doing so allows scientists to carefully lay out the premises, the methods, how the data were analyzed, the results, and the conclusions, all so other scientists can evaluate - and recreate - the work. I've discussed peer review in depth in previous posts. [Click on these links to read Part 1 (basics of peer review), Part 2 (when peer-review goes wrong),  Part 3 (abusing the system), and Part 4 (using the internet to bypass peer-review) of the series.] Once published, the research is further scrutinized, which may confirm or refute the work, and usually leads to more studies...and more publications. Many climate researchers, for example, have hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers (whereas most climate deniers have few, if any, peer-reviewed publications).

But think about the scientific publishing process for a moment. Like physicians, for example, where individual doctors may specialize in endocrinology, brain surgery, dentistry, or podiatry, scientists may specialize in astrophysics, archeology, biology, chemistry, mathematics, geology or dozens of other specialties. The more specialized the professional training and expertise, the greater the likelihood that a given scientist won't be keeping up to date on advancements in other fields. A biologist is likely to have memberships and subscriptions to several biology-related organizations and journals, but may not be reading a physics journal discussing heat transfer in atmospheric systems.


This presents the dilemma that while journal publication is critical, it is largely focused on communicating with other scientists within your own field. That said, despite the tendency toward greater specialization, there is also a greater need for multidisciplinary collaboration. For example, ecologists looking at migratory patterns will see that those patterns are being modified by climate changes.

So how does one reach out to scientists in other fields?

2) Presentations at Universities: We've already said that scientists attend scientific conferences to find out what other scientists are doing, but here we have the same problem as with journals. With limited funds, scientists are usually only able to attend one or perhaps two conferences in their primary area of focus. One way for climate scientists to reach out to scientists in other fields is to give presentations at Universities, especially if it can be arranged such that all relevant scientific departments have the opportunity to attend. We all have friends in other universities - set up a brown bag or evening talk next time you're in town.

One key point for presenters to remember is to avoid scientific jargon that may not be understandable to scientists in other fields. This is less of a problem than it might be when communicating to the general public (more on that later), but try talking about quantum flux to an ecologist and you'll see some glassy eyes nonetheless. The goal is to get the gist of the information out to other scientists so they can have informed discussions with others in their fields (and with their non-scientist friends). They won't need all the details, but as scientists they will want to have enough detail to feel comfortable that the science is sound. Make the time to present to them.

3) Explain the IPCC Process: This can be done as part of item #2. With so much disinformation floating around out there (much of it intentionally wafted onto the winds of blogs by lobbyists), it's important other scientists have a sense of how the scientific consensus was arrived at, including how the IPCC and other organizations assess all the scientific literature. Bottom line, all the science from more than 100 years by thousands of scientists published in more than 100,000 peer-reviewed papers unequivocally demonstrates that human activity is warming the planet. Make sure other scientists understand how that unequivocal conclusion was obtained.

4) Call out Misinformers: Let's face it, there are people and organizations out there who are intentionally misinforming the public. Most misinformers are lobbyists and political operatives, but a handful of those misinformers are scientists. It is important to call them out on their misrepresentations, errors, and in some cases, outright falsehoods. This shouldn't be as hard as it sounds - scientists are not afraid to question methods and conclusions at scientific conferences and in publications; this is no different. As professionals we have an ethical obligation to call out people who are repeatedly misreporting the science. Do it.

5) Explain "science" in terms of the big picture: Yes, scientists are encouraged to narrow in their research question so that it can be tested. That's the focus of your peer-reviewed publications. But when reaching out to other scientists, especially those in other fields, it is more important to give them the bigger picture.Your study looked at melting of glaciers? Explain how melting glaciers affects overall global warming, or drinking water sources, or tectonics. Don't just tell them your study conclusions; tell them what your study conclusions mean to our overall understanding of the big picture science. And tell them how your findings are relevant to their field of study.

6) Write a Blog: And set up a Facebook group. And produce videos for YouTube. And teach a MOOC. These will be especially useful when communicating to the public, but they can also be directed at a more technical level to other scientists. Don't be afraid to experiment with social media (have your kids show you how).

7) Teach Students How to Communicate: While most of the focus of this piece is on scientists communicating to other scientists, don't forget that your students are the scientists of the future. It is imperative that they know how to communicate to other other scientists. Again, this goes beyond just publishing in journals and presenting at conferences. All the above applies to them as well.

While there are likely other points that can be offered on how to communicate the science to other scientists, these seven points cover the most critical. The goal is to broaden your field of vision so that others can understand the meaning of your work. In this age of limited resources, it's important to make the effort.

Future posts will explore how scientists can communicate to policy-makers and to the public. Stay tuned.

How to Communicate Climate Science to all Three Target Audiences

Do you need to communicate climate science? If you live in today's society the answer most likely is yes, you do. This applies not just to climate scientists and scientists in other fields, but to bloggers, writers, journalists, policymakers, and anyone interested in science and/or has a family.

Scientists in all fields engage in a series of steps to communicate the science.

1) Research: Yes, scientists have to do research. Usually a lot of it. Generally this starts with a literature review to see what other scientists have published before. What are the key questions that need to be asked...and hopefully answered? How and why is this research potentially important? Scientists do the research, conduct the studies, and collect the data.

2) Analyze the Data: In these days of supercomputers, satellites, and "big data," the amount of information may be massive. All of that has to be analyzed. Sometimes this can take years. Generally there are teams of researchers working on a project. This can be especially true when that project consists of data collected from all over the world, from satellites, from oceanic transponders, from ice cores, and from potentially hundreds of other places.

3) Attend Conferences: An integral part of communicating the science is attendance at scientific conferences. Thousands of researchers can gather at some central location - or remotely via online symposium capabilities - and present short papers about their research. In between sessions you'll find scientists discussing the latest research. From experience I can confidently say that scientists are not shy about telling other scientists when they think they are wrong...or may have missed something. All of this helps bring out questions, and identify additional experiments to address those questions.

4) Publish: Science is the totality of all the research. Scientific studies generally examine individual pieces of a very large puzzle, and all of those pieces must be examined in context with all the other pieces in order to draw wider conclusions. Some of that is done at conferences, but mostly this is done by publishing the work in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Once published, the study can be looked at by any and all scientists with the interest and expertise to evaluate it. This usually leads to more questions, more studies, and more publications.

So if you're a scientist and you've gone through all of these steps you can consider your science communication done, right?

Wrong. You've only just begun.

Long gone are the days when scientists had the luxury of doing science in their lab or field site, publishing in scientific journals, and moving on to the next study while letting others communicate the information to the wider audiences. Today, with the ubiquity of internet connection and the prevalence of "Google Experts" (i.e., not experts), the chance of the science being misunderstood by the public is huge. Add in the professional lobbyists who intentionally misrepresent the science and you have the makings of a lot of people being misinformed.

The first step scientists and others must take is to understand that there are three distinct audiences to whom you must communicate the science.

(1) Other Scientists: This is the easy audience. Other scientists, especially those in the same field of study, generally will attend conferences in person and read the full scientific papers in scientific journals. This is how science has traditionally been communicated.

(2) Policymakers: These include everyone from regulators (such as EPA) through legislators (e.g., Congress, states) on up to the President of the United States (and his or her equivalents in other countries and international bodies). The bigger the issue the greater the likelihood that policymakers will have to pass laws or implement policies to deal with the issue.

(3) The Public: While it has always been the case to some extent, in this connected world the general public's role in making policy has grown exponentially. Policymakers (notwithstanding the disproportionate influence of lobbyists and rich campaign donors) are most influenced by public opinion. It is the public who are the real drivers of change. It is they who give policymakers permission (or pressure) to take action.

That is why the aforementioned lobbyists and donors spend so much time and money shaping public opinion. Often they do this by intentionally misrepresenting the science.

Think about that. Not only is the science often incredibly complicated, which can be hard for the public to follow, there are organizations and individuals out there intentionally trying to mislead the public.

Imagine them doing that without scientists standing up for the science. Imagine what happens when the science is misrepresented without any scientist correcting the misrepresentations. How is the public to understand the science when the only "science" they are presented in terms they can understand is misrepresented? And how are policymakers to make informed policy when they have been intentionally misinformed...and themselves intentionally misinform to avoid taking responsibility for action?

That is the take-home point of this particular post. Scientists must ensure that the science is accurately communicated. And that communication must be to all three audiences - other scientists, policymakers, and the public.

Since the methods for communicating to each audience are different, future posts will examine the specific challenges and present specific communication tips for communicating to each audience in ways each can understand.

Is It Time to Shut Down Climate Deniers?

Recently I asked, "Is Climate Denial Dead?" The answer may surprise some. What is clear is those that deny the unequivocal climate science aren't going to give up easily. After all, they have massive vested interests in misrepresenting the science: the fossil fuel industry has an interest in protecting the externalization of costs that gives them such extraordinary profits; the right wing/libertarian groups have an interest in protect their members' desire to be unburdened with the costs of regulation that protect human health and the environment; and the climate denier lobbyists have an interest in, well, continuing to get paid to misrepresent the science just as they have been in denying smoking causes cancer, CFCs widened the ozone hole, smokestack emissions caused acid rain, and every other denial of science they have been paid to "manufacture doubt" on over the years. [FYI, see here and here]

Which gets us to an interesting development in the world of public relations, PR. These firms can be considered an amalgam of law firms, lobbyists, and advertising agencies. Their objective is to "sell" whatever idea their clients want the public to believe. They shape public opinion, which the wide swings in political polls demonstrate are extremely malleable. As the Guardian has noted:

Public relations firms have played a critical role over the years in framing the debate on climate change and its solutions – as well as the extensive disinformation campaigns launched to block those initiatives.

But its seems PR firms may have decided that misinforming the public on climate science, i.e., being a party to climate change denial, is no longer in their best long-term interests. It certainly isn't in the best interests of their families, their businesses, or their countries. At least ten of "the top 25 global PR firms" have publicly stated that "they will not represent clients who deny man-made climate change." This includes such big names as WPP, Waggener Edstrom (WE) Worldwide, Weber Shandwick, Text100, and Finn Partners. Edelman, which was singled out by the Guardian in their first article as not committing to deny the deniers, did apparently agree in a follow up Guardian article.


This follows on the heels of a recent decision by the BBC to stop giving air time to climate deniers. Perhaps this is a growing trend.

Of course, those very same deniers of climate science will wildly scream that the system is being unfair to "opposing views." But like everything else climate deniers profess, it isn't true. Science grows from its inherent skepticism. Rather than suppress alternative hypotheses, science embraces them. Any research that suggests a conclusion different from previous research is enthusiastically challenged by other scientists. The entire idea of science is to try to pick away at any hypothesis proposed to explain our observations. Hypotheses that don't hold up are discarded and the search continues. But when that hypothesis stands up to all that scrutiny, usually over many years, hundreds of other studies, and millions of data points, it can become the established understanding.

Climate science deniers, of course, can do scientific experiments, publish in scientific journals, and present at scientific conferences. But they don't. Instead, they misrepresent other people's research, publish opinion pieces in business magazines, and saturate the blogosphere with falsehoods and misrepresentations. Climate science deniers don't offer opposing science, they offer opposition to the very idea of science. They offer political opinion that is contradicted by the science.

So it is a good thing if PR firms and media outlets refuse to give air time to climate science deniers and other deniers of science. Honest debate can only occur when deniers of science are no longer allowed to pollute the debate with repetitions of known falsehoods. Which is what they do.

Meanwhile, climate science continues to grow our knowledge. Every year we collect millions of new data points. And those data tell us unequivocally that human activity, primarily our burning of fossil fuels, is warming our planet. There are serious ramifications to this scientific fact. The debate is over what steps to take to deal with the science, not the science itself.

Lessons from Neil deGrasse Tyson - How to Talk to the Public about Science

Neil deGrasse Tyson is an astrophysicist. More importantly, he is also a science communicator. In his day job he is Director of the Hayden Planetarium, part of New York City's American Museum of Natural History. That in itself is pretty cool. Even cooler is that Tyson is a popular "television scientist," by which I mean a real scientist who is on television a lot (not some actor on television who plays a scientist). His natural ability to talk science to non-scientists, with a dash of humor, makes him an extraordinary exemplar of how scientists can communicate science to the public.

Older folks will see a bit of Carl Sagan in Tyson. Both were astrophysicists who leaped from the ivory tower into the public eye. Both communicated science in ways that everyone could understand. And now, Tyson is doing a remake of Sagan's famous science series, Cosmos. Better yet, while Sagan's 1980 version was on PBS stations, Tyson's 2014 Cosmos is on, some may say "ironically," the much more widely accessible Fox networks.

While Cosmos covers a variety of topics, the one I'll focus on here is a single, short video that helps explain the simple difference between weather and climate. Take a look:

As Tyson says, "keep your eye on the man, not the dog." Climate is the long-term trend, something that we can see happening based on millions of data points. We can also evaluate and project the trend into the future based on physical and chemical laws and reactions. Weather, on the other hand, is highly variable from day to day and place to place. This is a fairly simple concept but one that is often confused by the public, in part because there are vested interests who intentionally mislead the public in an effort to avoid policy action.

Tyson's video is actually drawn from an earlier video using the same concept. This time the walking dog is used to illustrate the difference between trend and variation.

Again the man represents the long-term trend. When the analogy is applied to global warming it is the track that global average temperatures are on given the continuing emissions of carbon into the atmosphere and oceans. The dog represents the variability in temperatures; some years are warmer than average and some years not as warm as the average. This short-term variation is influenced by short-term events that effect weather, like the periodic El Nino events that tend to bump up temperatures and the La Ninas that tend to suppress temperature rises. These variations give any temperature graph its ragged look (the dog's tracks). In contrast, the trend is shown by the line of the man's steps. And like the global temperatures around us, that trend is going up.

There is no guarantee that everyone in the public will get the twin concepts of climate/weather and trend/variation, but these two videos using a wandering dog on a leash are an excellent means of communication. More scientists should present their work in simple video form. And perhaps more scientists should follow Tyson's lead and appear on television. I suspect Jon Stewart of the Daily Show would be happy to have you.

How the Media are Used to Intentionally Mislead the Public on Global Warming

The fact that humans are warming the planet is unequivocal and incontrovertible. Who says so? Well, virtually all climate scientists, all the world's National Academies of Science, and indeed, the basic physics of the greenhouse effect. Studies of the scientific literature consistently demonstrate that 97% or more of climate scientists agree our planet is warming and human activity is the cause. Who disagrees? The Wall Street Journal. More on that in a follow up post.

Which brings to light an important dynamic of the global warming debate. And by debate I don't mean whether global warming is happening, because that has been established beyond all doubt. I also don't mean a debate about whether humans are causing it, because that too has been established beyond all doubt. And yet, there are those who intentionally try to "manufacture doubt" about global warming, just as there were those who intentionally manufactured doubt about smoking causing lung cancer.

One tactic used to give the impression of doubt is to manipulate the media. Always in search of ratings, and the ad revenues that are tied to ratings, the media thrives on controversy. They like "debate." But their long history of presenting a "balance" of views has been hijacked and exploited by groups expert in managing public opinion.

Ironically, it was a media outlet video - by a comedian, no less - that provided one of the most effective demonstrations of how the media, either intentionally or unintentionally, misrepresents the science to the public. As the video below featuring John Oliver notes, most news outlets relay information on global warming by showing two people debating. One is usually a scientist volunteering to present the scientific case, the other usually a non-scientist paid to represent their client's interests. But the reality is quite different. [Note: Sound coarse language]

When most people see two people debating the natural tendency is to assume equal weight of opinion. But that isn't true. Would it make sense to debate the presence or absence of gravity by having one person advocate for each "side?" Of course not. No more than you would have a one vs. one debate on whether Elvis is alive or whether the Earth is round. The facts are clear.

So too with global warming. The facts are clear. We are warming the planet. No amount of debate between one scientist (representing virtually all climate scientists, 200 years of science, millions of empirical data points, a hundred thousand peer-reviewed scientific papers, and physics) and one non-scientist (representing oil companies and political lobbyists) is going to change that fact.

So when the media present such a "debate" they are actually misrepresenting the science to the public.

How can the media communicate the science accurately? One way is stop having paid lobbyists spouting non-facts as commentators. Instead, have a knowledgeable climate scientist, or perhaps a panel of two or three climate scientists, present "what we know" of the science. These same scientists can also present "what we don't know." For example, we know the planet is warming and that we are causing it. But we don't know exactly how much or how fast (we can present likely ranges), in part because there is inherent short-term variability that creates "noise," even though we can determine the long-term trend with great accuracy. Depending on the time allotted by the media outlet, this "what we know" and "what we don't know" can go a long way toward communicating the science to the public, and doing it accurately.

The Science of Communicating Science

"Science has operated for so long on this information deficit model, where we assume that if people just have more information, they’ll make the right decision. Social scientists have news for us: we humans don’t operate that way." 

So says Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist from Texas Tech University, quoted in a recent issue of Smithsonian magazine (see the link for the excellent article). She emphasizes a key point in the debate of how to communicate science to the public. The assumption is often that all we need to do is explain the science in more detail, or perhaps just slower, and the public will get it. Many of us scientists have known for a long time that dumping even more data on people not only doesn't improve the chances of them understanding it, it is likely to accomplish exactly the opposite. And even if they understand it, they might choose to ignore it because it conflicts with their personal or political beliefs, a phenomenon called "cognitive dissonance."

So where does that leave us? Explaining the science doesn't seem to improve the public's willingness to take action on the science. How do we communicate?

We can start by being careful of the words we choose. This idea was made very clear in recent reports that the West Antarctic ice shelf had reached the point of "inevitable collapse." While most media outlets quickly jumped on the concept of "collapse" - which the scientific study defined as our inability to stop the eventual melting of ice shelves in West Antarctica over a period of centuries - New York Times columnist Andrew Revkin recognized the danger of giving the wrong impression to the public. 

In his article "Consider clashing scientific and societal meanings of 'collapse' when reading Antarctic ice news," Revkin accurately captured the inherent differences in definition of the word "collapse." Scientists view this finding as incredibly important; there is nothing we can do to stop the ice from melting. But it's a process that will take centuries to proceed. The public on the other hand, views "collapse" not as something merely inevitable, but immediate, catastrophic, dramatic. Imagine Joe Q. Public getting all worked up about a news headline that the ice on Antarctica will collapse, only to then find out that this is projected to happen on a timeframe of 200 to 900 years.

Say what?

Joe's likely reaction is akin to Reagan's "There you go again;" just those darned climate "alarmists" trying to scare me. Add in a chorus of climate denial lobbyists intentionally spinning the differences in word meaning beyond surreality and you have the workings of a failed communication.

To be fair, this is less about scientists and more about the media, but scientists have to stick their heads out of their proverbial ivory towers (or more realistically, dingy, underfunded basement laboratories) and anticipate how their language will be used. To give a good sense of how much of a problem this can be, there is even a Facebook meme going around about it:

As you can see, how the public interprets a word can be very different than how a scientist means it. You can add in public confusion about scientific words like "climate change" vs "global warming," "theory," "anthropogenic," "consensus," and "uncertainty." All of this means that scientists must be extremely careful in how we communicate information to the public. Assume that what you are about to say can be misinterpreted. Also assume that it will be intentionally misinterpreted by those lobbyists who are adept at guiding public opinion (after all, that is their job). Plan to work with journalists and other "news outlets" (aka, blogs) to communicate the science to the public accurately, without undue hype but also without downplaying the significance of the information.

That last point is critical. Plan to communicate to the public. More on that later.

"Science has operated for so long on this information deficit model, where we assume that if people just have more information, they’ll make the right decision. Social scientists have news for us: we humans don’t operate that way,"


Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/talking-about-climate-change-how-weve-failed-and-how-we-can-fix-it-180951070/#WQi2B2AgEtPmKfVe.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on TwitterScience has operated for so long on this information deficit model, where we assume that if people just have more information, they’ll make the right decision. Social scientists have news for us: we humans don’t operate that way,"

"Science has operated for so long on this information deficit model, where we assume that if people just have more information, they’ll make the right decision. Social scientists have news for us: we humans don’t operate that way,"


Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/talking-about-climate-change-how-weve-failed-and-how-we-can-fix-it-180951070/#WQi2B2AgEtPmKfVe.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

"Science has operated for so long on this information deficit model, where we assume that if people just have more information, they’ll make the right decision. Social scientists have news for us: we humans don’t operate that way,"


Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/talking-about-climate-change-how-weve-failed-and-how-we-can-fix-it-180951070/#WQi2B2AgEtPmKfVe.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter