Climate Change and Strategic Communications

This is how scientists prove their critics are wrong - but line graphs don't shift public opinion

The scientific case regarding man-made climate change has never been stronger.  Climate change is real, our actions are prompting it, and the failure to address this will lead to severe consequences.   (here's how it works - we burn oil and coal and gas, which belches a humongous amount of carbon into the air, which traps heat in the atmosphere, causing all sorts of weird weather and other nasty stuff.  It's more complicated than that, but that's basically it.  It's actually pretty intuitive.  Pour enough crap into anything that supports life and eventually bad things happen.)

The political position of those who would fight climate change has never been weaker.  Last year the US House of Representatives (under Democratic control) passed a "climate bill" that was widely regarded by pundits as the absolute most that could be accomplished politically - and widely panned by environmentalists as not nearly enough to turn the tide.  The Senate didn't pass anything.  Last year's UN meeting on climate change - the overblown farce known as COP 15 - saw a lot of speeches that said "the time for talk is over, the time for action is now" but produced an "accord" that basically said climate change is a bad thing and maybe someday someone should think about doing something.  Maybe.  Even though the "scientific" arguments presented by climate change deniers are absolutely pathetic (as outlined in Dr. Gleick's piece at Huffington Post), they're still winning on Capitol Hill.

This year, House committees (now under Republican control) will hold hearings designed to smear climate scientists.  A "climate bill" isn't even under serious consideration in the House or the Senate.  (We will see, however, a debate on abolishing the EPA.)  Companies that profit from burning oil, coal and gas have funded all sorts of "think-tanks" and hired a bunch of PR guys to work together to confuse the issue and make sure John Q. Nascar remains focused on the things he can see, like President Obama's birth certificate from Kenya.  (it's on the internet, you know.) The UN meeting on climate change that took place in December (COP 16) thankfully wasn't overhyped, but didn't really accomplish much more than COP 15. And I'm not the only person who noticed that the words "climate change" mysteriously disappeared from the State of the Union address this year.

The problem is simple: those who support the status quo have a coherent, coordinated, and well-funded communications strategy.  Those who support real change (and sound science) do not.

So when I see someone like Chris Mooney - someone who is smart and actually trying to fight this battle - point to a form letter written by a group of scientists addressed to every Member of Congress and suggest it "teaches us a thing or two about communication" - I have to sigh.  Chris clearly has an optimistic viewpoint on this and says he wants to encourage more scientists to get involved in the political process.  He's right about that.  However, since the pro-science (and actually pro-business) message on climate change comes in uncoordinated and often random spurts, it has very little impact.  And when scientists make the observation that their valuable time and effort on outreach like this is being wasted, they are less inclined to try it again.

So my advice - start working more closely together and agree on a strategy, a message, and a set of tactics.   And if all you want to do is criticize how others are doing this, or say it's not worth doing because it's not perfect, STFU and go away.   Here's an outline of what I'd do, as promised in an earlier post.

Topline Strategy: Position your side as the solution, the way forward.  Associate supporters of the status quo with the salient problems of the status quo more generally, and position them as opponents of progress.  You saw something resembling this in the most recent State of the Union Address. The President didn't mention the words "climate change" but he did talk a lot about "winning the future" and the economic benefits of clean energy technology.    Then develop a range of strategic and realistic policy goals and attack.

Identify your audience.  "Everybody" is not an audience. "Members of Congress" are an audience, but the way to reach them isn't a letter.  You need to have face-to-face meetings with them and their staffs.  More importantly, you need to have face to face meetings with the people who influence those Members of Congress most.   I think that means the real audience is the media, business leaders, trade associations, and political donors.   As for consumers - and they're also important, because they vote - Mom is unquestionably the household decision maker for basically everything, so you need to develop a coherent message for moms.

Messaging.  Have a backgrounder available for the paleo-clima-anthropomorphi-techno stuff, but scientists and environmentalists aren't losing this fight on the science.  They're losing on the economics. Right now, the message from the other side is simple: capping carbon = less energy use = less economic activity = less profit = fewer jobs for John Q. Nascar.   But to buy into their mindset you have to believe that we won't or can't change the way we use energy, that efficiency doesn't really move the needle, and that wind power is crazy-looking. I think it's time people realized that we don't have cap-and-trade, and the economy sucks anyway.  While messaging should always be in the authentic voice of the person speaking, I think it makes sense for everyone who's speaking on the pro-science side of the topic to assert the following general points:

• The people who deny climate science support a status quo that works for no one but them. High energy prices hurt the entire economy - except maybe a handful of companies and individuals.  We're looking forward but they're clinging to the past.
• Climate science deniers also deny consumer choice.  The technology exists to give us electric cars, energy-efficient appliances, and so on.  Polls show millions of people want them.  But the people who say climate change is a "hoax" also oppose policies that would make it easier for consumers to get them.
• Climate science deniers oppose innovation.  They've gone all-in for a 20th-Century energy strategy that says "dig it out of the ground and set it on fire." They work hard to make sure the rules favor this strategy, and they're holding on to their advantage for as long as they can.

There are other points to make, but if you notice, these general arguments (opposing the status quo, supporting choice and innovation) are largely generic arguments that "test well" with the public and with policy elites across all sorts of issues.  They're also relevant and truthful.  This sort of thing has to be THE message - not "the sky is falling," not something about tree rings, not something that must be measured in parts per billion.  

I'm sure some scientists are thinking "we've said all that already."  Not really, no. These messages haven't been forcefully, clearly, creatively, and repeatedly delivered to the people who matter.  They haven't been built into a coordinated campaign that includes earned media, paid media, social media, and lobbying.  

As for policy issues, there are plenty of options - but what's most important is going on offense.  A really smart political operative once told me "if you're not on offense, you're on defense - and if you're on defense, you're losing."  If you're looking for specifics I recommend my pal the Ecopolitologist for ideas.  Start with battles you have a good chance of winning, build momentum, and keep pushing.  And stop it already with the "it's not for scientists to decide policy, our role is only to share data and analysis."  Everyone has a right to participate completely in the political process. Everyone.

Orac, Mockery, and the Absence of Outreach

I'm going to tread carefully here because I love reading Respectful Insolence. The blog's author, who goes by the pseudonym "Orac," is ridonkulous-smart, obviously passionate, and above all, not one to mess with.  I'm also going to stress that the following represents my personal opinion, has nothing to do with work. (I have worked in the past for pharmaceutical company clients; not doing anything with them currently.)

Orac spends a lot of his time mocking the anti-science crowd, as is his right.  He's quite good at it.  He does so from his perch at Scienceblogs, which according to their own marketing data is read mostly by scientists (or at least people with graduate degrees and people who manage scientific projects).  He's apparently gotten some criticism that he's simply talking to other scientists when he makes his arguments - that he's "preaching to the converted" and this helps no one.   I've made a somewhat similar argument, though I've never called out Orac specifically:

Science has a serious PR problem, and it's this: Critics of science are searching people out and talking with them in the simplest terms possible. Scientists and "science writers," if they talk at all, are basically talking with each other.

So I was interested in his response, which you should read but is summed up like this:

When I hear such charges now, I think I'll just refer the one doing the complaining to this video:

Let me stress Orac is under no obligation to be a Science Ambassador.   It's not his job to move the public opinion needle.  He can write whatever he wants, and I'll probably read it and nod my head and smile.  But given that he made this response, I assume he's at least interested in the issue.

I realize this response wasn't made personally for me. But it oversimplifies the criticism.  First, who assumes there's only "agree and disagree?"  It's precisely because there are so many people in the middle that I think Science's PR problem is so tragic.   (oh, and the little bit in the video making a play on the word "converted" evaporates if you prefer the term I sometimes use, "preaching to the choir.")

This video is a curious defense of homophily.   Of course it's good to have discussions within one's own community.  Of course it's good to galvanize ideas and sentiment and rally the base - it just can't be the only thing you do.  (See "Palin, Sarah.")

The thing that irked me the most about the video (and I realize this isn't Orac's original material) is this idea that posting material online "makes it available" so people can see it when they're ready to change their opinions or accept new information. 

Sorry, this is a cop-out.  Again, no one is forcing Orac or anyone else to be an Ambassador. But if he cares about "moving the needle" in the public, he's smart enough to know this isn't how diplomacy works.  The anti-science cranks of the world aren't waiting around for people to find them.  As Orac points out, they're showing up on Huffington Post and Oprah and daily news shows - you know, where the people are.  And they're listening to people and communicating in terms that resonate.  (And by the way, they're pushing their new book or their new line of organic herb supplements that remove "toxins" or cancer-curing magnets, which could be yours for just 4 easy payments of $29.95 but supplies are limited so ACT NOW!) 

The whole premise of the argument is based on the notion that people outside Orac's circle are either already getting his information, or will actively seek it out and know where to find it in the future.  That's just not how communication and persuasion works.   You don't convince people that a particular treatment for a disease is important simply by publishing an article in JAMA.   It's just the first step.

Calling the other side a bunch of quacks probably feels good.  Using scientific data to show why they're quacks probably feels good too.  And if that's all you want to do, that's fine.  I'll keep reading it.

If you're interested in more, you have to get out and find those people in the middle (we know they're not reading scienceblogs and they're not likely to look for scienceblogs) and listen to their concerns and understand their motivation and explain your position in terms that are relevant and understandable.  You have to get out of your comfort zone a little.

As always, more soon.

Gonna get all nerdy and stuff

This weekend is ScienceOnline 2010 and I'm looking forward to meeting some of the more prolific and influential science writers in the world. I'm giving a brief, "Ignite" presentation in which I'll try to talk about how I think science and medical bloggers can have an impact on other online communities.

In the time I've worked in social media I've noticed that the sci/med online communities doesn't talk a lot with other online communities - particularly the community of people that makes almost all the household decisions, moms. I'm also noticing that sci/med bloggers care quite a bit about how journalists cover their research, but don't seem to talk much about how they can talk directly to the people they're trying to influence from their work.

I think we need more bridge figures - more specifically, we need more mom scientists and mom doctors who are comfortable talking in both communities.

More updates as I can post them.

Norman Borlaug

He didn't sell a billion albums, but he saved a billion lives. And most people have never heard of him.

Truly, we celebrate the wrong people in this world.

Watching the Watchdogs

Seems CBS has some egg on its face thanks to the blogosphere once again - but this time it's the liberal political blogs on the attack. And this one will not go away. CBS messed up and the best thing they can do now is acknowledge the mistake, apologize, and not do it again.

This is only the latest example of how blogs from the left are holding the traditional (no, we shouldn't call them "mainstream" anymore says Markos) media's feet to the fire. Before the blogs were calling out Katie Couric - someone who is by no means recognized as a conservative - they were focused on Andrea Mitchell's latest comments. One of the most common questions asked on Professor (and former Clinton Administration official) Brad DeLong's blog is "why oh why can't we have a better press corps?"

To be honest, this is what I value most from the political blogosphere. I really don't rely on bloggers for political opinion - I worked on Capitol Hill long enough to have my own opinions and ideas about politics and policy. (Wow, did THAT sound snobby.) But I need facts on which to base those opinions, and I rely on journalists to report on those facts. That's a hard job - and the simple truth is nobody is perfect and nobody is free from their own bias. I like that the fact-checkers now have fact-checkers. And frankly, at least the blogger is up-front about his or her own political bias.

It's funny - I often get the impression that journalists don't like being held to the scrutiny to which they subject their subjects. Many journalists have long sought to minimize the role of bloggers in this regard - I've already written about corporate media's five stages of grief - but there's at least a handful of good journalists who think that journalism has to adapt to the new age of accountability that social media has helped deliver.

We hear the term "citizen journalism" quite often, but I don't think this is what political bloggers do. They're generally consumers and not producers of journalism. It's just that today's consumer is more educated and discerning, and has the ability to talk back.

You know, "It's Not a Lecture."

(You want some blogs that look at journalism, go here. )

Social Media is NOT All Media

So Senator Obama is visiting Kentucky today and tomorrow (no, I don't plan on seeing him) as the local paper puts out its poll that shows not only is he down a whopping 27 points, but that Kentucky has a problem with the Senator's former pastor and race is the "elephant in the booth." Oh, and one guy from Inez says he's a Muslim no matter what the Senator or anyone else says he is.

Race is a dominant issue, says the Lexington Herald Leader, because Kentuckians were asked if they thought Reverend Jeremiah Wright's comments were important to their vote and 215 of them said yes. These same 500 Kentuckians were also asked if Senator Obama's race makes him more or less likely to win the presidential primary here, and 105 of them said it would make him less likely to win.

My immediate reaction was "great, another story about Kentucky's problem with race." But as I thought about it I realized it's just another example of the difference between mainstream media and social media. And it's a great example of why corporate media is dying.

Look at what Americans say are the ten most important problems facing the country right now, according to Gallup: The economy (41%), the war in Iraq (23%), the price of fuel (9%), health care (8%), unemployment (6%), dissatisfaction with government (6%), immigration issues (5%), high cost of living (4%), lack of money (4%), moral decline (3%) and terrorism (3%).

Heck, look at the most important issues gleaned from this very Herald-Leader poll: the economy leads by a wide margin. Then the war (if you're a Democrat), national security (if you're a Republican), and health care (if you're an Independent).

Now look at the poll questions the Herald Leader chose to ask (pdf) for this story and implied that race was essentially the dominant political issue in Kentucky right now:

In terms of how you will vote, how important are the remarks made by Barack Obama’s former pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright?

In terms of how you will vote, how important are the misstatements made by Hillary Clinton about her trip to Bosnia?

In terms of how you will vote, how important are the comments made by Barack Obama in San Francisco about small-town voters?

Do you think Barack Obama's race makes him more or less electable in Kentucky or does Obama's race not matter in his getting elected?

Do you think Hillary Clinton's gender makes her more or less electable in Kentucky or does Clinton's gender not matter in her getting elected?

So just like the ABC News debate debacle last month in Pennsylvania, the public is focused on the issues that actually affect them, while some in the "professional" media want to keep talking about who's black, who's a woman, and stupid things people say - including something said by a guy who isn't even a candidate.

I think the folks who did this poll may just be trying to see if the Wright/sniper fire/bitter non-issues had an impact. My answer is simple - any story that's forced down the throats of the American people every day for several weeks by the media will have an impact. With due respect to my friends in the professional media, this isn't one of those stories in which consumers demand more details. Those same consumers have given the media a blueprint of what's news.

Corporate media is dying not simply because they're competing with the online channel. They're dying because they continue to try to control the discussion and steer us toward topics people just don't find important, and more consumers are having none of that.

Campaign '08 will be remembered as the last presidential election in which the corporate media controlled what issues frame the election. Count on it.

Back off, man - I'm a scientist

Apparently the brainiacs at MIT want to do a little research on Red Sox fans as they watch the World Series, and they're recruiting subjects online.

Any predictions on what the research will reveal about us?