Now for the science bit...
- 20 Oct 2011, 18:00
- Ros Donald
In an earlier post, we looked at some of the reasons why it's
so tough to communicate climate science. Here, we examine some of
the ways scientists can improve their rapport with the public,
highlighted in a
new article in Physics Today by Richard Somerville and Susan
Hassol.
It's an important topic. The climate science community's failure
to successfully communicate climate change has led to a significant
gap between the public's perception of the causes of climate
change and the consensus among scientists, and the views of most
climate scientists.
'Climategate' provides a case in point: in the time it took the
climate science community to respond to the leak, Somerville and
Hassol say skeptics were able to use the episode to "repeatedly
denounce the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)] and
climate scientists." Meanwhile "neither the panel nor the
scientists were very effective in refuting the attacks."
Here are some of their suggestions for turning things
around:
Turn the pyramid upside-down
Scientists tend to communicate with each other by starting with
the background to their findings, gathering supporting details and
then coming to results and conclusions. To communicate with the
public, however, scientists need to "invert the pyramid", starting
as a news story would with the headline and then moving on to why
people should care - the "so what" question.
Keeping it simple
Once scientists have arrived at a simple clear message, they
should repeat it often, avoiding putting in too much detail or
using too much 'science speak' that can just end up washing over
the public. By using terms the public is used to such as feet in
the US rather than metres, scientists can put their message over
more clearly.
It's also imperative that scientists don't forget about the
basics:
"Scientists often fail to put new
findings into context. They tend to focus on cutting-edge research.
But it's also important to to repeat what is scientifically well
understood to a public for whom the well-established older findings
may still be mysterious."
Don't let uncertainty cloud the issue
Somerville and Hassol also point out that scientists spend too
long talking about what they don't know and fail to give enough
time to what they do.
"They should explain the connections: In
the case of heavy downpours, they can explain that a warmer
atmosphere holds more moisture, so any given storm system can
produce more rain. Scientists have measured an increase in
atmospheric water vapour and definitively attributed it to
human-induced warming. They have also measured an increase in the
amount of rain falling in the heaviest downpours, a change that
climate models have long projected."
Use metaphor
Climate science is complex enough for climate scientists, let
alone for the majority of us without a grounding in the discipline.
Say Somerville and Hassol:
"Failing to use metaphors, analogies and
points of reference to make mathematical concepts or numerical
results more meaningful is a common mistake. [...] For example,
when reporting that the amount of melt water coming from the
Greenland ice sheet in 2005 had more than doubled in just a decade
to 220km3 per year, scientist Eric Rignot
helpfully added that the entire of Los Angeles used about one cubic
kilometer of water a year for all purposes."
Clean up the language
'Science speak' can seriously confuse people without a
scientific background. "By failing to anticipate common
misunderstandings, scientists can inadvertently reinforce them",
say Somerville and Hassol. For example, a better substitute for the
word "uncertainty" - which to most people means ignorance or a poor
understanding - would be to describe a "range" of
understanding.
The paper includes this nifty chart, which has been attracting a
bit of attention in the blogosphere:
More language problems
The way scientists talk about climate change can also be
misinterpreted in terms of the severity of the problem and the
weight of conviction within the scientific community. For example,
talking about 'belief' in climate change is misleading,
as: "The conclusion that the world is warming and that humans
are the primary cause is based on facts and evidence." Meanwhile,
when scientists say human activity "contributes" to global warming,
it sounds like the contribution could be small instead of being the
primary cause.
Careful choice of language can also avoid problematic
reactions.
"When climate scientists say that
warming is 'inevitable', it can give the impression nothing can be
done. Of course, that's not what they're saying, but they should be
careful to make clear that society faces choices."
Telling the story
Successful communication also depends on making sure the issue
is framed in terms the audience cares about, linking climate change
to peoples' experiences.
"Try to craft messages that are not only
simple but memorable, and repeat them often. Make more effective
use of imagery, metaphor, and narrative. In short, be a better
storyteller, lead with what you know, and let your passion
show."
What next?
The IPCC has
recognised the need for a better communications strategy. But
it's first attempt, a press release and executive summary on its
Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation,
has been criticised in
its attempt to create a good headline for using misleading
language in places. Incidents such as 'Climategate' have
created a steep learning curve for scientists attempting to
communicate climate science in a meaningful way. Based on the
confusion still apparent in countries such as the
UK,
US and
Australia, the conversation is just beginning.