Dear Alexandre, at this instance I would like to share with you some preliminary results of a small research work that I was conducting on environmental awareness. I found that most of the people have hinted that there should be changes in the course curriculum of school and college students so that the upcoming generation is well acquainted with climate change and related issues.

And i personally would also support this result.

I would say all, accept the last. We do already have a lot of independent campaigners, but the strategy of bringing it to the public is not well enough. I think that teaching children, students and just everyone more on the core of what a climate system is, how it works and what affects can change which parameters and therefore change the climate. We still do need to learn a lot about the climate system, but we already know so much. And getting people think about it, let them do research on their own to think about what your own opinion is about for instance climate change we can go further in science. It will also generate more inside in the public spectrum, and thus creating more aware for the climate; which then will result in more action by countries and (inter)national organisations to do more against the climate change issue.

Hi Alexandre! This is a tough question, because even some scientists, especially those who are not experts in the field(s) related to Earth's climate, are skeptical because of personal or political beliefs. My understanding is that the situation is especially bad in the US, where there's a powerful industrial lobby against climate change.

I have always felt that my responsibility as a scientist is to take a public stand against pseudoscientific or false claims in issues where I'm an expert. Thus, I think that eventually the only way to change the public opinion is to reclaim the initiative in the debate about climate change and not to let the industrial lobbyists and other special interest groups to dominate the discussion. Experts in this field need to lobby and lobby hard!

Nice question, but complex issue with many stakeholders...widening the public platform to support the cause needs a combination of making centralized communication more efficient to reach a broader public on an international scale with unified/consensus messages, and increasing decentralized awareness, scientists and campaigners acting on the local scale to highlight the implications of climate change to the 'self' and each person's immediate environment.

From a journalist's perspective, perhaps a trade-off from 'selling the story', and defending 'biased interests' and 'business values' towards reporting the unbiased observations and implications and attention for the precautionary principle. No one can be blamed for being careful in ensuring sustainability for ourselves and future generations. We need to get rid of the shortsightedness that dominates the public debate.

Awareness is raised on many different levels, seeking the most efficient way seems a noble effort to maximize effect, as long as it doesn't delay the message that needs to get across.

Looking forward to reading many more views that are undoubtedly out there

Best wishes,

J

This needs more than a new communications strategy to achieve; it needs a fundamental change in mindset and one that transcends national boundaries. Instead of regarding the economy as the whole field of interest it must come to be seen as a subset of the planetary ecology and a part of the overall Earth system. This means primarily that processes currently regarded as economic externalities, like dumping waste into the sea or gaseous emissions into the atmosphere, must be incorporated into the economic and business cycles.

Inertia is the big problem here, coupled with the short term focus of business and economic planning and, to be brutally frank, the short human life span. We are not good at planning for the future when the 'future' is more than 10 years or so ahead. Business managers need to justify this year's actions to the shareholders; politicians need to face reelection in four, five or seven years time. And, of course, if current externalities were costed and the costs laid at the charge of the companies responsible then many of those companies would go out of business and their very business models would cease to be viable.

Having said that, a better communication strategy would certainly be a good start. One major factor limiting the acceptance of the scientific consensus on climate change is the media tendency to always look for a 'balancing' point of view in any 'debate'. So, the arguments from a climate scientist are 'balanced' by those of a climate 'sceptic' (as if scientists aren't sceptical by nature and profession). So that means you have the vast bulk of the climate science community on one side and Christopher Monckton, Nigel Lawson and James Inhofe on the other. The public sees the argument as 'balanced', but it isn't at all. This is leaving out, of course, the fact that some prime media outlets, for instance anything owned by the Murdochs, are simply ideologically opposed to the public acceptance of climate change.

So, there are a couple of important lessons that need to be learned by the world's media,

1. There is very little debate in the climate science community about the realities of anthropogenic climate change and what debate there is is largely to do with the relative strengths of different forcing factors (see in particular your link to Naomi Oreskes work).

2. That reaching for anyone with a contrary opinion is not the same as showing that there is a debate within any specialised field.

How do we ensure those lessons are learned? Well, that will require leadership and so far our politicians haven't shown any. Once again, short term interests trump long term dangers and the public is not sufficiently traumatised by the prospect of climate change to elect politicians willing to do anything about it. You can see this in the reaction to the news about this year's loss of summer ice in the Arctic, which made headlines for a few weeks because it is an immediate effect of a long term trend (although the effect was emphasised much more than the likely cause) but which is now fading into the background again. It will be interesting to see the media's reaction next year if the anticipated El Niño conditions combine with the warming trend and the loss of Arctic summer ice is even greater.

We need a force to overcome the inertia that prevents change to the current status quo. That force is likely to be public opinion, but the public's opinions will only change when its short term interests are threatened and the dangers and possible remedies are presented in a convincing way. My answers to the questions in your final paragraph are 'Yes' to all of them, but first there must be an acceptance of the need amongst political leaders.

This is one of the key problems we all face when trying to affect change on people's behaviour based on scientific evidence, be that climate change, air quality, water quality, etc.

Unfortunately it has been my experience, and reading other scientists experiences it doesn't seem to be unique, that it doesn't matter what information you put on the table, we never seem to move forward.

It seems that it is not a "reasoning" or information related issue ... the discussions in public remain with the same arguments.

I don't have an answer actually so if anyone have specific ideas ... keep them coming!

Dear all,

CLAMER was an international project falling under EU’s FP7. It relied on an extensive group of partners across Europe to tackle the obvious lack of transparent, reliable, and understandable communication of knowledge about the impacts of climate change on the marine environment.

Problem, the significantly improved knowledge and understanding of current and future impacts of climate change on the marine environment rarely leaves the scientific arenas. As a result, the politicians, policy makers and the general public are left with the gaps in their understanding of the consequences of climate change and to an extent involvement.

That’s what the CLAMER project was all about, synthesizing all climate change research and possible impacts in Europe and trying to fill in the large gap of knowledge and understanding of the impacts of climate change on the marine environment between scientists and non-specialists.

It was very interesting to see the results of a large-scale European survey investigating the public views on marine climate change impacts in Europe. “How much of our research is reaching the general public?” a question which every scientist should be asking him/herself really, as this part of our contribution to society. (see websites for results of the survey). The role of the media here is a very important one whereby science is translated into easily digestible statements that can hit home with the general public. But too much or too little information, and conflicting messages put off the public and causes the information to get lost in translation and too often not arrive at all. The media can communicate in strange ways, because it loves to reassure and scare at the same time, it wants to frighten and comfort, because that is what sells. Non-dramatic messages simply stay on the shelves, unsold. The role of scientists and science communicators – in the broad sense of the word – is key and should engage the public. In fact, perhaps we should say “publics”, because there are many target groups and it is obvious that not everyone can be reached by the same media. So efforts should be done to diversify the message of climate change impacts. At the same time, we should probably be aware of the danger of losing the effectiveness of communication and concerted messages through translation and modification of the knowledge we send out; e.g. “slowing of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation” turns into “Western Europe on the brink of an ice age?”. Does the media not also often underestimate the intellectual capacity of the publics in attempts to reach the masses?

Not underestimating the role of scientists and media, education is where it all starts and is a very important factor… It is easier to explain, communicate and engage if people have a basic awareness from a young age of one of the largest threats that face our society today.

FYI www.clamer.eu for info, results, films, etc.

Best wishes,

Jeroen

Thank you all for your thoughtful responses. This Clamer project is definetely interesting.

I must say the scope of my question was a bit narrower than it should. Indeed, the disinformation campaign does not rely on conveying facts, or data, or published paper results. So the information deficit is not necessarily the problem to be overcome here, like Gustavo Olivares suggested above.

But anyway, there is a distorted “balance” in the media, and it certainly helps to spread confusion.

I often compare climate change communication with other issues, to help disconnect personal and emotional positions. The role of HIV on AIDS, for instance, still has a few challengers. However, no media worker would say that he/she must establish a “debate” each time they present news about AIDS, or each time a public health worker advises people to use condoms. I’m pretty sure journalists would call this “balance” downright disinformation and a public disservice.

I partially disagree with Philip Marston when he says people are not good at planning the long term (10+ years). Investors and governments make a lot of decisions on that time span. Yet when governments make long term strategic decisions (say changes in social security rules, or some large energy investment), it is seldom the result of direct and strict constituency approval. It is unreasonable to have all the details explained to the broader public in a meaningful depth. It is generally a decision that’s delegated to the policy makers, according to (in good scenarios) quite broad directives set in pre-election campaign (“the country needs more energy to develop” or “we need to secure pension payments in the long term”).

People do have the capacity to act in response to long term threats. The problem, here, is that the disinformation campaign conveys the idea that it’s a non-problem, or at least a largely exaggerated one. Information is out there, but very few have the time, energy and knowledge to dig out data from, say, the NOAA paleoclimate webpage. Like in the social security problem above, it is unreasonable to expect people to figure out the actual state of the science for themselves and then demand for governmental action.

Even the IPCC report, while an excellent technical resource, is beyond the reach of the general public. I’ve met people who said “if it’s so certain, why don’t they plainly say so?”.

Maybe (and I’m open to criticism) research institutions should come out and do a coordinated outreach effort in a campaign. Much like tobacco hazard warnings in TV ads and billboards. Public, official speeches/statements stating their position. Things that would communicate to the average layman “scientists are saying this”, and not the takeaway media message “it looks like a 50-50 uncertainty”. Dubious published paper language (“on the other hand…” “data suggests…”) should be avoided in these cases. Just say it the way people would when faced with similar cases of certainty: if 9 out 10 planes crash over a certain route, we don’t say “It’s very likely that an unwanted outcome would take place. On the other hand, the survival rate suggests further research could yield different practices to be adopted”. “No way” would maybe be a more accurate description of the likelihood of any of us boarding that plane.

I understand the scientific reticence. James Hansen had a great article about that. I understand that under such fire scientists decided to tighten even more their already overzealous speech. But the result of unexpressive language is that people perceive the problem as unreal.

Soundbites like these below, issued by credible research institutions, backed by sound science, could convey a coherent, understandable message:

“We thought Arctic sea ice would be as low only in fifty years. It’s going now.”

“Remember last summer’s heatwave? That will be our mild summer in 2060. Protect our children’s future. Stop global warming.”

“40% of our freshwater comes from that glacier. Protect our water. Stop warming.”

Please have in mind I don’t have the skills or pretention to propose project to a PR campaign. I’m just stating that plain and straightforward communication is used in other cases of public interest. The only reason it’s not used in climate change today is that ‘skeptics’ succeeded in making this subject ‘controversial’ and even touchy. And this is certainly NOT in the public interest.

Dear Alexandre, at this instance I would like to share with you some preliminary results of a small research work that I was conducting on environmental awareness. I found that most of the people have hinted that there should be changes in the course curriculum of school and college students so that the upcoming generation is well acquainted with climate change and related issues.

And i personally would also support this result.

Jürgen Gauer Landesforsten Rheinland-Pfalz

As a possibility for a regional strategy of the information about climate change I would like to refer to the "Rhineland-Palatinate Competence Center for Climate Change Consequences" [in German) (http://klimawandel-rlp.de) with the immediately the regional population is supposed to be informed. In particular in the web-portal www.kwis-rlp.de one can access actually information for the present climate (actual, current station data) as well as to the different climate-projections of the possible future climate in Rhineland-Palatinate.

A line that I am trying to take on this question to beware of implying that climate science is simply common sense. If you do that, anyone's common sense can be highly colored by political biases, and you haven't informed anyone. The understanding that warmer ocean water causes both more frequent and more powerful tropical storms, based on common sense and observations from the world closer to its natural state, have yielded to more nuanced understanding based on ocean-atmosphere temperature gradient. Climate change doubters in the political arena regularly resort to simple ridicule of the idea of anthropogenic climate change, and rely on their listeners' common sense to agree with them. I like Jeroen Bloom's suggestion to "get people to think about the climate system," but it has to end up involving real scientific reasoning and likely mathematics, which too often makes most people just give up. If it really were about common sense or opinion, it wouldn't be science.

Brent Lofgren

“Climate change doubters in the political arena regularly resort to simple ridicule of the idea of anthropogenic climate change, and rely on their listeners' common sense to agree with them”.

This is absolutely right. What's needed is a good dose of 'systems thinking', an understanding of the connectedness of different aspects of the climate cycle. Many people confuse 'weather' with 'climate' and most people pay more attention to the views of their immediate social circle than to opinions they see in the media. We've all heard the view that 'global warming can't be real after the winter we've just had', but the problem is that the proper communication of the realities of climate change and its causes needs a sustained campaign of education and this is easily attacked by short and catchy soundbites and the deep pockets of the deniers.

Part of the problem currently is the framing of the 'debate' as a 'belief' or a 'non-belief' in anthropogenic climate change, as if it were simply a matter of choice rather than a careful weighing of the evidence. But most people are not going to weigh the evidence for themselves, they're going to look first to see what their peer group thinks. In my view, this means that efforts at communication should be targeted at the institution level first, rather than at individuals.

There's a good article on the need for systems thinking (or 'how to think relationally' as he puts it) from Stephen Sterling of the University of Brighton. It's a chapter from 'The Handbook of Sustainability Literacy', but is available for download separately from this page on the university's website, http://arts.brighton.ac.uk/stibbe-handbook-of-sustainability/chapters/ecological-intelligence

Correction: Stephen Sterling is at the University of Plymouth.

Brent Lofgren,

I understand your reasoning. One can only truly accept science (not just climate science) when he understands it. In this case, it involves a good deal of math, since it's basically physics.

However, this is a scientist's thought (I assume you are a scientist). Roughly half the population does not believe in AGW (as if it were a matter of belief), and you will not reach them with equations, no matter how compelling they might be.

If it were a matter of evidence, policy would be under way 20 years ago. If it were a matter of scientific reasoning, websites like Science of Doom would have much more monthly hits than Watts Up With That. The general public does not have the skills, time or will to solve equations and reach their own informed conclusion. And if you wait them to do it, or even if you force them to, you will not make public opinion move an inch.

This is a PR problem. Denialists have not confused public perception with equations, they did it with rhetoric. In my view, scientists have helped them do so by sticking to hard science (in their communication), and staying out of reach by doing so.

PR problems have to be solved by PR tools. Public perception has its own laws, and they have to be respected if you want to achieve any meaningful result.

That's why I suggest simple, direct messages from credible authorities - respected scientists and respected research institutions.

I understand your point completely, but I worry that framing the situation as 'a PR problem' suggests that the weight of evidence is irrelevant. Or perhaps I should take a step back and say that the PR problem is convincing the public of the importance of evidence, rather than falling into the trap of a rhetorical argument with denialists. Scientists (and yes, I am one) have peer-reviewed evidence as their main tool and we mustn't lose sight of that, otherwise the whole debate just comes down to who has the most strongly voiced (and funded) opinion. I thoroughly agree that scientists need better PR skills, but as well as, not instead of, their reliance on the evidence (I'm not suggesting you think otherwise).

There are many 'simple, direct messages from credible authorities'. Look at the websites of the NOAA, the Tyndall Centre, the UK Met Office, the IPCC and so on and on. My own professional association, the Geological Society, has a simple and easily understood position statement on the background to climate change and how we understand it,

https://www.geolsoc.org.uk:443/webdav/site/GSL/groups/ourviews_edit/public/Climate%20change%20-%20evidence%20from%20the%20geological%20record.pdf

There's no shortage of direct messages; the problem is that few people with political or economic power are taking up those messages and acting on them. Perhaps a starting point is to ask whether the lack of public interest is the driver or the result of the lack of political interest. The New Yorker made this point in an article on 28th September entitled 'Hotter than Paul Ryan',

“Yet, as big as the almost certainly irreversible retreat of the sea ice will figure in the future of the planet, it has attracted relatively little attention in the here and now. A study released on Thursday by Media Matters for America, a liberal watchdog group, found that over the last few months, Representative Paul Ryan’s fitness routine—he’s a big fan of what’s known as the P90X workout plan—has received three times as much television coverage as the ice loss.

“What’s hotter: Global warming or Paul Ryan’s abs?” the study asked.”

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/09/candidates-ignore-an-arctic-disaster.html

Today's edition of the UK newspaper, The Guardian, has a section giving the views of 50 'readers and public figures' on 'what they would do to lead us out of this climate predicament'.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2012/oct/01/50-months-climate-interactive

I think the message is clearly 'out there'; it's just not making much headway against vested interests.

Sorry Alexandre, I thought you were replying to me, but I can see now you were replying to Brent Lofgren

Hi Phillip,

Sometimes we answer to someone in particular, but of course it's an open debate. Thanks for your response.

I agree with you that PR does not replace evidence. What I'm highlighting here is the fact that evidence does not replace proper PR, when the issue at hand is communicating to the broader public.

They are two different tasks. You cannot do science as a marketing campaign. But you cannot reach public opinion through the way you convince a fellow scientist of your point. Again: PR has its own laws, and they must be respected if you want to achieve good PR.

The public statements you mentioned are not nearly as simple and direct as I think such messages should be. They're more like "what a scientist would say if he was teaching global warming to non-science undergraduates". You mention the IPCC report: believe me, laymen that are interested enough to read some of it have said things like "if it's so certain, why don't they plainly say so?"

I wrote a lengthy comment above, perhaps already long enough to lose the attention of readers here - and you guys are mostly scientists. In my opinion, this communication should resemble the VERY simple message we have in some countries, for instance, about tobacco hazards: "the National Medical Association warns: Smoking causes lung cancer".

At this stage, no graphs, no uncertainty ranges, no caveats. Just the simple, honest information. If someone is interested enough to go beyond that (some tiny fraction of the constituency), THEN those statements you mentioned would be useful. THEN there's enough information on the web to get people surprinsingly informed about the climate system. There's even the complete lectures of Dr. David Archer about AGW physics he teaches at Chicago University (non-science undergraduates version), available online for free.

However, the broader public (say 80-90%) will only be reached by that very simple first message. What's been done so far is to neglect this layer of the communication, expecting an attention span only a student in a classroom (ideally) would have.

The already mentioned vested interest groups, on the other hand, have been quite skillful on that layer.

We knew all along that this is a very tough nut to crack. My point that people want to rely on common sense, which doesn't always align with science, is an observation, not a solution. I wish I had a solution. I get the impression that I am one of the few Americans on this forum, and in this country, it seems like too many people are willing to dismiss simple messages from respected scientists and respected institutions based on certain pundits' and politicians' baseless statements to the effect that these scientists are just making up their assertions.

So, yes, some people will respond to a simple message that reflects the consensus of scientists, but I would say the number who end up agreeing on that basis is much less than 80%. Too many will be swayed by the responses from well-spoken representatives of vested interests. Again, I wish I had a solution that is both effective and truthful. Maybe the answer is, like the cigarette warnings, to make the message really simple and saturate people's consciousness with it--who will fund this?

Great points from both Philip and Alexandre. And yes, I am a scientist.

The problem with much PR is that 'victory' usually seems to go to the side with the deepest pockets. A simple message about AGW, echoing Alexandre's example from the 'tobacco wars' that "the National Medical Association warns: Smoking causes lung cancer" could be “the IPCC warns: fossil fuel emissions cause global warming”. The potential success of this would then come down to two factors: 1). how much money the IPCC has to get the message out and 2). the credibility of the IPCC in the public's mind. As in the tobacco wars, the vested interests will spend a great deal of 1). to undermine 2). and even though the battle might eventually be won through the accumulating weight of evidence, too much time might be needed to achieve that victory.

To go back to your original question, Alexandre, I would suggest that the first course of action should be to increase the levels of scientific literacy amongst journalists. All your other points are valid too, but I think this one is fundamental. While few journalists will admit to illiteracy, many happily confess to innumeracy (“oh, I'm no good at maths!”). And there are some difficult non-mathematical concepts involved in understanding climate science; the whole idea of systems thinking, tipping points and feedback loops is foreign to many journalists used to thinking in a linear fashion. While there are many excellent science journalists, scientific literacy amongst mainstream journalists is often lacking and that might be a very good place to start.

Excellent point about literacy Phillip. Isn't limited to journalists at the moment, however, education and ocean and climate literacy from a very young age is needed to produce a future public which can be responsive to facts, data and statements within the "systems thinking" you mentioned. There is two flies to kill with the education stone here, creating journalists that can convey accurately and translate if necessary and developing a (future) public to which the messages may hit home. There is no point sending eloquent, well-founded messages out to a world of which a large part is ocean-and climate- illiterate. The saying "speaking to a wall" comes to mind here

Best wishes,

J

The messenger I had in mind was not the IPCC, which is quite new and distant from anyone's reality, but NOAA, NASA, USGS, NAS, or any known national scientific institution. Of course, the Heartland Institute can always have their own billboard, but my point is that the broader public would at least know these institutions' position - today people don't. It still looks like a 50-50 "debate".

Of course, a better scientific litteracy would always help, but that does not exclude the good use that could be made of proper PR. Remember: even if this proposed path has it hurdles (it certainly does), our present path does not seem to be achieving much. Polls show declining figures of people who even think this is a real problem.

I consider it unreasonable to expect people (laymen, the general constituency) to learn the physics and then act accordingly. Any improvement in scientific litteracy is always welcome, but to count on that that level of public knowledge to enable change is unrealistic (IMHO).

I am not a scientist but have experience in PR, the issue is who the message has targetted not the message. Denialist have focused on opinion leaders while scientists have targeted the public in general. Consumer behaviour is area should look at in how people make decisions the target reference groups. Don't need to out spend denialist just need influence right people