Climate Change Communication Adventures

Climate change communication is becoming a hot topic again. The LA Times recently published an article about climate scientists' effort to "push back" against skeptics. The piece included plans by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) to launch a Climate Q&A Service for journalists. AGU has in turn pushed back against the LA Times, saying they are not part of any concerted lobbying efforts.

AGU has stated that the project, which was first launched in 2009, and is primed to restart soon, is non-partisan. The project will let journalists contact AGU with climate change questions. Members with PhDs will then respond, addressing only the science. There will be no policy positions stated by AGU members through this service. It will be in service for two to three months leading up to and after the climate talks in Cancun later this month.

Climate scientist and AGU President Michael J. McPhaden has said, "AGU is a scientific society, not an advocacy organization. The organization is committed to promoting scientific discovery and to disseminating to the scientific community, policy makers, the media, and the public, peer-reviewed scientific findings across a broad range of Earth and space sciences."

Compare this assessment to James M. Taylor, senior fellow at the conservative Heartland Institute take on scientists. In the LA Times article, he says "the budget is spiraling out of control while government is handing out billions of dollars in grants to climate scientists, many of whom are unabashed activists." (Who knew these unabashed activists are the reason for our huge deficit?)

I think AGU is right to stay above the fray (although their press release clarifying their stance is a little milquetoast). Two of their core principles are the scientific method and the "generation and dissemination of scientific knowledge." Their principles don't include being part of "a broad campaign to push back against congressional conservatives." To do so would undermine the group's non-partisan credibility and feed right into attacks like those from Taylor.

Some people including Kate Sheppard are worried that AGU is setting up a situation where anyone that defends climate change science will be labeled an activist. The press release from AGU doesn't give any credence to this thought, though. Rather, AGU has set up an invaluable tool for reporters who might not have the background to fully understand and cover climate science.

There are scientists who want to push back a little harder than AGU. John Abraham of St. Thomas University is heading up just such an effort. He has previously helped debunk Lord Monkton's, a leading climate change denier, testimony before Congress. Abraham is putting together a climate change "rapid response team" of nearly 40 scientists. The goal is to be able to quickly respond to misinformation and even go into the belly of the denial beast: talk radio. Having a small team of scientists ready to do this makes a lot more sense than asking the same from a group with nearly 60,000 members.

Abrahams has said,"We are both scientists and human beings. As scientists, we need to find ways to get accurate scientific information to a wider audience in a way that is policy neutral. As humans, we are concerned. I am concerned not only for myself, but also for my children and for people in the world who don't have the resources needed to adapt to the coming change. As a human, I have an obligation to speak up for them. It is too bad that scientists have to take personal and professional risks in order to be good citizens of the planet."

Scientists have a duty to really engage the public with their findings on climate change. They haven't done a great job to date, and a concerted misinformation campaign has maligned what little effort there has been. Having a rapid response team to respond and reclaim the narrative along with a more informed cadre of journalists is the best of both worlds. Just as there is no one way to solve climate change, there's no one silver bullet to finally kill the smear campaign against the science. As long as both these efforts steer clear of policy prescriptions, they can be effective in clearing up the communications morass.

Photo Credit: Flickr