Simple, not Simplistic

Many AGU talks I attended this week focused on communicating about climate change. Climate scientists are asked to speak with schoolchildren, media, politicians and church groups. Even scientists who are not climate specialists are asked by waiters and relatives “Is it really happening? What’s supposed to happen here?”. Regular folks who are doing their best to be responsible will be asked questions by those around them as changes become visible in their lives.

Scientists have a delicate balance to walk. Since scientists are often asked about solutions in addition to science, they must learn to clearly distinguish between their expertise and the personal opinions they may hold about policy strategies. And, since there has been so much misinformation in the public media, scientists are often asked to respond to controversy.

Good communication is not easy, but is doable and important. Dr. Richard Somerville of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography described the communications difficulties encountered by the authors of the newest IPCC report. He said the IPCC authors spent more time arguing about the language on the FAQ than on the language in the report. This inefficient state of affairs persisted, until they realized that scientists speak in jargon and numbers, and what people need is plain language. It wasn’t until they hired a writer whose tag-line is “Science In= English Out” that the FAQs were finished.

Others talked of the need to be good communicators, and to be media-savvy. Brenda Ekwurzel of the Union of Concerned Scientists gave some tips on how to talk with the media, from the book "A Scientists Guide to Talking with the Media". These are useful for anyone-it may be easier to talk with the media than it is to talk with your brother-in-law. Here are some tips gleaned from the talks I saw.

• Have a thirty-second elevator speech ready. Ready means practiced, so when you are surprised by your neighbor while hauling groceries home on your bike you can respond between gasps for air.
• Remember your audience: How science-savvy is your mother, or your colleague, what messages are likely to make it through?
• Keep language simple, not simplistic. Avoid jargon and technical terms.
• Speak from the heart. Tell people how you feel about what you know and what you are doing.
• Use metaphors and put numbers into context. "The sun provides the Earth with more energy in an hour than the globe consumes in fossil energy in a year." (James Barber, Imperial College, London), is far better than "The total solar irradiance is XYZ watts per meter squared.". People don't know what that means.
  
• Remember 3-4 key messages, and keep coming back to them. Whenever you start to get sidetracked, bridge back and say "yes, but what I do know is this....".

What about climate-skeptics, or well-meaning people who are just confused by what they see in the media? Personally, I won't get into debates, since I think my time is better spent gardening. But, for people who are just wondering what to believe, research shows that people accept the science more when controversy is allowed and addressed in a dialogue.

Here are some helpful truths: Understanding the nature of science is key. It is important not to be eco-holier than thou. Actions speak louder than words. Respect is always in order. Scaring the bejesus out of people does not help; showing them what they can do does.

For a discussion of climate skeptic arguments from the BBC and others, see RealClimate.org.