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

Changing the Way the IPCC Communicates Climate Change

The IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has released its periodic series of reports documenting the state-of-the-science, and the prognosis is not good. Human activities are warming the planet. That is scientific fact.

And yet, not much is happening in the way of policy action to deal with this scientific fact.

I've argued on this page that the IPCC, and scientists in general, need to change the way they communicate the science. While the IPCC has tried to have a better "rollout" of the reports, even to the point of joining the YouTube age, they still haven't figured out 1) that they have to communicate directly to the public, and 2) how to do that.

The Climate Outreach and Information Network, COIN, a UK-based climate communication NGO, has issued a new report discussing this important issue. Called "Science and Stories: Bringing the IPCC to Life," the report offers some recommendations on how IPCC can improve their communication of climate data. The following is taken from page 6 of the COIN report, with the report's following pages going into greater depth on each:

1. Invest in communications

An enhanced communications budget would provide more resources for the

IPCC’s existing communications team to expand their role and reach, and to train

some of the hundreds of scientists involved to communicate more effectively

2. Embrace video content and social media

With an enhanced communications budget and a group of scientists with focused

communications training at their disposal, the IPCC could significantly expand

into a broader range of communication channels that it currently makes only very

limited use of.

3. Show the human face of the IPCC

The IPCC has excised virtually all evidence of human life from its publications.

One way of bringing the IPCC to life would be to show the (many) human faces of

the IPCC – the scientists who give their time and valuable expertise – and tell

their personal stories.

4. Work with a diverse range of partners

The IPCC should work with a range of partners from across the social and

political spectrum who can lend cultural credibility to the scientific consensus they

convey and bring the science to life.

5. Tell human stories about climate change

IPCC outputs must be coupled with human stories and powerful narratives which

can bring the science to life. How will climate change affect the things people

love?

6. Test everything

Any recommendations for communication should be grounded in systematic

testing.

7. No more Assessment Reports

- deliver science to 'order'

If the IPCC were structured in order to catalyse a proportionate public and

political response to climate change, the Assessment Reports would be turned

on their head and would start from the needs of their audiences. These

audiences would be defined by their capacity to bring about rapid social,

technological and economic change.

While there is room for debate about the exact procedures that IPCC and other scientific organizations can employ, there is no question that improving communication is necessary. As report co-author Adam Corner writes in The Guardian:

For almost 25 years, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released regular assessment reports warning the world of the dangers of climate change. The scientific knowledge that has been accumulated over this time is astonishing in its breadth and scope.

...Despite all the rebuttals of sceptics' arguments, and the "myth busting", public opinion is no further advanced than it was when the IPCC first started producing its reports.

As the science becomes more and more unequivocal, the calls for action haven't followed suit. Clearly there is a need for improvement. Scroll back on this page for more discussion and ideas about how to communicate science.  I'll have more on this and other ideas for how scientists and policy makers can better communicate with the public.

National Climate Assessment - An Exercise in Communicating Climate Change

“Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present.” So says the new U.S. National Climate Assessment released this week. This is the third such report, which was mandated by Congress in 1990. And the 12 findings are dire.

The report is the result of four years of work, where "more than 300 experts guided by a 60-member Federal Advisory Committee" compiled the latest state-of-the-science. Drafts of the report were "extensively reviewed by the public and experts, including federal agencies and a panel of the National Academy of Sciences."

The bottom line: Man-made climate change is a fact, it is here now, and it impacts every state in our country. Impacts will vary from region to region, so there can be increased droughts in some areas at the same time as increased flooding in others. Impacts, overwhelmingly negative, will be felt in every facet of our lives: health, transportation, energy, water use, ecosystem health, agriculture, and oceans. 

Climate trends include increasing temperatures, melting ice, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, and changes to extreme weather events and precipitation. Some of these changes can already be seen today, and the rate of these changes is likely to increase without action.

It's clear that human activity, primarily our reliance on fossil fuels and the resultant emissions of carbon to the climate system, is warming our planet. It's also clear that steps to reduce or eliminate carbon emissions are necessary - and those steps are long overdue. The National Climate Assessment provides information on what those steps can be.

Overall, the rollout (for lack of a better word) of the National Climate Assessment has been an improvement over previous communications of climate change. Rather than simply release the 841-page report (which is downloadable for those who want the details) and forget about it, they have created a snazzy new website appropriate for our tech-oriented (and attention span-challenged) populace. The website tries to make the voluminous data more accessible to the interested public, a definite plus. It allows viewers to review each of the 12 report findings, first with a short statement and then followed by more detailed information. For example, this is the first finding:

Global climate is changing and this is apparent across the United States in a wide range of observations. The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels.

The text and graphs that follow are generally easy to follow, and better yet, are generally simple and interactive. The graphics-heavy presentation allows casual users to get the gist of the information, and given most of the public would fall into this category, this is a very good thing. Additional text and citations allow the more interested user to dig deeper into the information. Also a very good thing.


In addition to the website, graphics, and attempts to provide information on multiple levels, there has been a clear effort to reach out to the media. Most of the news outlets had some coverage. While the right wing outlets like Fox News, and even the right wing commentators on CNN, were predictably dismissive of the science, most news programming captured the unequivocal science basis and the urgency of action needed. This can be seen in both national  (e.g., Time) and local (e.g., Portland) news outlets.


Unconventional outlets, for example, the well known in climate circles Peter Sinclair and the blog Climate Science Watch also made an attempt to communicate the findings to the public. Scientific agencies that do climate research, for example, NOAA, also helped spread the word about the report. The administration even reached out to meteorologists (and other "weather presenters") to get the news out to the public.


Will it be enough? Will there suddenly be a push by the public to deal with made-made climate change?


Of course not. But each step taken is one more step closer to action. The public will be the ones who create the demand for action by policymakers (which is why the climate denial industry writes Op-Eds and blogs instead of doing any science). The National Climate Assessment is likely going to fall off the radar for most people as soon as beach season begins, but a concerted effort to keep communicating to the public - even if they are hesitant to listen - is the only way to go. 

That, and cool graphics.


[Note: All graphics presented here come from report]

Book Review - State of Fear by Michael Crichton

This site periodically does reviews of books that are related to science and science communication. State of Fear by Michael Crichton is a novel. Despite being fiction, it's become an icon of the climate change denial community. That in itself says a lot. As such it raises interesting science communication issues.

Because this book is really two "books" I'll review them as if they were separate. The first "book" is a novel about the struggle between extremist environmental groups and a rich benefactor with a change of heart supported by a mysterious private paramilitary-ish hero. The focal point of the conflict is global warming. The novel is interesting and the action is exciting enough to keep people reading to the end. That said, the plot was rather predictable in an almost James Bondish sort of way. Still, the book is an interesting read for its genre.

The second "book" is only important because this novel (repeat, novel) has been given almost biblical prominence by the climate denial movement. Some other reviewers even assert that the words of a novelist should be given more weight than all of the world's climate scientists. This inability to separate fiction from reality (perhaps it can be called the "Ayn Rand effect"), is both scary and embarrassing to our society. Crichton's novel, as well as his Authors Note and Appendix, offers so much climate denial propaganda that it is like reading the denial lobbyists' talking point memos. He tosses out the exact same straw men, misrepresentations, and misdirections, laced with semi-truths and out-of-context cherry picks, that have become the mainstay of the denialist industry. Each talking point had already been debunked at the time of the book's publication in 2004, and with another 10 years of data demonstrating unequivocally that we are warming our planet, his talking points seem fantastically silly today.

So read the book as a novel (which, of course, it is), with all the suspension of reality necessary and appropriate for fiction. Just remember it's just fiction. If you're interested in man-made climate change, do your research at NASA, NOAA, the IPCC, and all the rest of the actual scientists in the field.

Communicating Climate Change - The Problem with the Media

From Media Matters

The IPCC released the third of its series of reports on man-made climate change last week, and the organization Media Matters published a first analysis of how the media was reporting it. While the analysis was limited in scope, it does provide some interesting insights into the role of the media in communicating the science.

One of the most noticeable things about media coverage of the report was that there wasn't much media coverage of the report. This is a problem on several levels, not the least of which is that the media is not communicating to the public one of the most important science stories impacting the public. While ignorance may be bliss in some cases, this isn't the time to hide from reality.

Another problem with the lack of coverage of this third report is that its focus is on mitigation, that is, it offers some potential solutions to man-made climate change and the impacts that we are facing from those changes. These are dire messages. But as Media Matters notes, "studies show providing dire messages without solutions could be ineffective."

Covering the first U.N. reports warning of the dire impacts of climate change, while giving relatively little coverage to the report outlining the solutions, may be counterproductive. A 2009 review of studies on climate messaging, published in Science Communication, found that "fear-inducing representations" of the threat of global warming without providing solutions could "trigger barriers to engagement."

Even worse:

[D]ire messages warning of the severity of global warming and its presumed dangers can backfire, paradoxically increasing skepticism about global warming by contradicting individuals' deeply held beliefs that the world is fundamentally just.

So whereas the media reported on the problem, they largely ignored reporting on the solutions. Doing so actually reduces the chances for action. And action is what the IPCC - and every other scientific organization - insists must happen. In fact, the IPCC notes that "carbon emissions need to be drastically reduced in order to prevent global temperatures from rising over two degrees Celsius -- the threshold to prevent the most catastrophic impacts of manmade global warming." We're well on our way to reaching the two degrees Celsius. Without action, the question is not will we reach it, but how fast.

It's one thing for the media to poorly report on science, as has been discussed here and here. But what we're talking about here is media actually misinforming the public by its dual errors of 1) ignoring coverage of solutions, and 2) giving false credence to science deniers.

This is a major problem.