Communicating the risks and uncertainties of climate change at the science and technology committee
Last week the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee met at London’s Science Museum to take evidence from experts on communicating the risks and uncertainties linked to climate change. Marion Ferrat, climate scientist at Imperial College London, offers her take on the session.
At the session held at the Science Museum a range of climate scientists and experts in science communication gave evidence, and the discussion was wide ranging.
What is the role of a scientist?
The panel suggested four main roles for scientists – to undertake research, to identify issues of relevance and work at solving them, to explain their work, and to assist in decision-making by communicating their results.
Professor John Pethica, Vice-President of the Royal Society, stressed that it was the duty of scientists not just to do the science, but also to participate in the discussion. The witnesses generally agreed that despite lots of progress in scientists talking about their work, there needs to be better training in communication for scientists.
Researchers are trained to communicate their results to other scientists at conferences and scientific publications, but often do not know how to deal with the emotional response involved with communicating results that have a direct impact on people’s lives, it was suggested.
When it comes to assisting decision-making by governments, the panel suggested that clearly and concisely communicating results could help policymakers make good decisions.
The committee asked the witnesses whether scientists should get involved in policy.
According to Professor John Womersley, Chief Executive of the Science and Technology Facilities Council, it should be up to each individual scientist to make that decision. Rowan Sutton, Director of Climate Research in the UK National Centre for Atmospheric Science (NCAS) said while most scientists feel comfortable explaining the likely consequences of a certain policy decision, few researchers would go further and actually champion a particular policy.
Meteorologist Tim Palmer agreed, saying he was happy to say that, for example, recent global temperature rise is largely due to human activity. But ask him whether we should cut down on greenhouse gas emissions and he will answer that is a decision for policy-makers.
Who do people trust?
Who are trusted voices on climate science is a question that comes up often. References to “climategate” were numerous but panellists agreed that the trust in scientists is back on the rise.
Trust is shaped by different things: understanding and independent thought, but also by questions such as: “Who will profit?” and “Will you practice what you preach?” One of the key conclusions was the necessity for openness and transparency around communication and sources.
Climate change immediately generates an emotional response in people, and can lead to guilt, the committee were told. This is partly what makes it such a tricky field to communicate: it is much easier as a scientist to convey the wonders of the universe that to tell people things which imply they must change their ways.
The role of the media
One recurring theme throughout the session was the fact that scientists find it difficult to communicate with the media. The scientists on the panel revealed they are often not comfortable with the way climate data is shown in the media, and in particular often judge headlines inaccurate.
This is also, however, a two-way street. One of the questions asked by the committee was whether scientists understand how to communicate with journalists. In answer to this, witnesses said there was a lack of awareness on the part of many scientists about how their words can be misinterpreted.
One interesting point was the difference between communicating scientific results in well-understood fields and talking about areas at the forefront of scientific research.
The media want a fairly black and white picture with a clear relationship of cause and effect, the panel suggested: A leads to B. Unfortunately, this is often not the way climate and meteorological science works. Uncertainties and probabilities are core in everything from a next century projection to a three-day weather forecast.
Sometimes the scientific vocabulary of climate change doesn’t help. Scientists often use specialist terms and acronyms, but don’t explain them clearly, the panel said. The choice of words is crucial when communicating climate science to the media and the public, and scientists should make sure that they clearly explain the meaning and subtleties of these terms.
One main conclusion came clearly from the session: the need for a real climate discussion rather than a heated climate debate. All witnesses stressed this point, saying that we should move away from the idea of oppositional debate and towards that of a constructive dialogue.