Not Talking 'bout the Weather

One part of my job requires me to think about climate change communication. I think and write about how scientists and engineers talk about climate change, about how bloggers and environmental journalists write about it, and about how documentary films present it. Over the years, my thinking on the issue has evolved in a big way, and the complexity of the communication problem that climate change poses -- both as a scientific and social problem -- bowls me over sometimes.

On the way to class tonight, a student asked me, "So, you think of your self as a climate change expert?"

"No," I laughed. "I'm very wary of that word 'expert.' I'm not a climate scientist, but I do study the climate change debate."

So I was interested when environmental journalist David Paulson linked from his blog Covering the Planet to a NASA piece on communicating climate change. David is interested in the idea, proposed in the NASA article, of developing a "30-second elevator speech" about climate change that is "concise, clear, jargon-free" and that includes a "scientific point or two, perhaps all wrapped up in a metaphor."

The NASA article is actually covering a climate change workshop often given by Susan Buhr, director of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences Education Outreach Program at the University of Colorado. I took the workshop from Buhr last year through the Colorado Alliance for Environmental Education, and greatly admire the work she does. She provide useful advice, like developing the elevator speech, and avoiding threats and apocalyptic rhetoric when talking about climate change.

Except, I find myself frequently unable to follow that good advice. Maybe, in part, it's because I'm not so interested in trying to convince people I meet in elevators about the science of climate change (my students are not so lucky -- they're stuck in an "elevator" with me for hours every week).

This is dangerous terrain I'm entering here, I know. But, I wonder if it is possible to simply circumvent the raucous scientific debates going on around climate change when we think about how to communicate it. I wonder if it is possible that the climate change communication problem is no longer a problem of science education at all, and trying to clarify and explain the science might be counterproductive.

If, as the NASA article and Buhr suggest, 93% of the American population are not actually "cynics," but many are simply "confused," I'm not sure the 30-second elevator speech, given by well-meaning friends, relatives, and/or activists, will clear up the confusion. I wonder, instead, if it might not make more sense to shrug one's shoulders, say something mild like, "Well, it sure is a problem," and "I wonder what we should do about it?"

Of course, that last question will lead to a discussion about climate change policy, which is almost as much of a quagmire as climate change science.

Oy.

I'm not advocating against science education, or improved science communication, or excellent research into climate communication and policy, of course. That would be nonsense. I'm just wondering if our 30 seconds with the public is best spent on the science. Maybe just treating the climate problem as if it were a settled question and moving on to the "now what," would be just as effective.

Comments

[Susan Buhr]

Hi Jennifer,
Thanks for the kind words. I enjoyed meeting you at the CAEE workshop. A clarification-the 7% refers to the portion of the US population who are actively dismissive of climate change. The rest are along a continuum as described in the Six Americas report (described and downloadable here http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/05/6americas.html ) I agree that a robust political response is needed now but we won’t get that on the right timeline unless the public is supportive. Good communication is important whether on climate science, policy or individual actions. I work mostly with those who are in the classroom or talking with friends and neighbors, and people often trust those they know more than they do media sources.
One observation on the state of climate change communication-it is very difficult for me to find a good source of information where I can send well-meaning skeptics. Some really are starting to question their usual information sources and want someone who will answer their questions without hostility. This is important, since nothing closes an opening mind like vitriol.
BTW, we will offer an online course on this topic in Spring semester, through the University of Colorado, Boulder through this series http://conted.colorado.edu/programs/sustainable-practices/ .

Susan Buhr

[Jennifer Schneider - Huffpost Blogger]

Susan,

Thanks for the comment! I appreciate the clarification. And again, I think very highly of your work.

I suppose what I'm wondering is this: what about using those trusted relationships to sort of take for granted the science question? In other words, what about bypassing the science altogether, and getting to climate solutions? For example, I'm thinking of my father, who is a die-hard Bush Republican and believes climate change is bunk. But he's a big fan of energy security. So we can have interesting discussions about alternative and nuclear energy to address that problem (and those things also address the climate issue). I guess that's what I'm wondering. Your work should continue, of course: I'm just thinking there are multiple rhetorical approaches.

I would think skeptics (thoughtful ones, anyway) might like Pielke Jr.'s blog. He's very even-handed, temperate, and scholarly but accessible. He's not a "skeptic" by any means, but is rigorous in outlining the scientific debates, and calls out Romm and others when they're being obnoxious or obfuscatory. Just a thought.

Jen

[JimBozo]

It's not a communications problem, it's a political problem. At least that's how the knee-jerk right perceives it.

I have a 10-second elevator speech: "So, you like paying $5 a gallon for the privilege of driving your SUV? Good for you!" But, I never bother to actually give the speech; as it's a waste of breath.

Any talk about "science" causes eye-glazing and big-oil talking points spouting.

[middleoftheroad]

So the knee jerk right are the only people with an SUV in Colorado or the rest of the country...really? Do you really believe that? Does every democrat or progressive drive a bug or a hybrid, or a bike to work?

[ReedYoung]

So don't try to tell them about the science. Try this:

"Why do you think it is that all the 'experts' who are 'skeptical' of the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect are paid by Koch Industries? Yes, they are. Google it."

[ReedYoung]

Yes, let the children make-believe there is no problem. We adults ought to simply ignore them and discuss amongst ourselves what to do about the problems that the science has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Maybe that is also the more persuasive approach than engaging deniers, which to an uncertain observer is likely to be indistinguishable from taking their "ideas" seriously.

[fumes]

say reedy..

have you seen this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

thanks goes to vengeanceismine..

[fumes]

"30-second elevator speech":

if it's runaway global warming that we face then we should be scared..

and if it's not a runaway scenerio the deer and the antelope go on playing.

here on the peninsula (nj) there is no evidence of a runaway scenerio!

applause.. elevator door opens..