Randy Olson's Plea for Science Arousal
I never got around to writing about this recent essay from recovering scientist-turned filmmaker Randy Olson, so I’m glad that Andy Revkin has taken it up at Dot Earth. Do watch the 10-minute Skype video interview that Revkin also posts, where Olson says:
The problem in the environmental and science worlds as far as I can see, when it comes to communication, almost 100 percent of the support goes to conservative approaches. There is virtually no genuine innovation and experimentation taking place and that’s the problem, is that genuine innovation involves risk taking.
This is partly because risk takers such as Olson get punished:
As you step out of the mainstream you just get completely ostracized and alienated…I’ve had 20 years in the science world just not supporting anything I do. There is no support for anything that steps out of the mainstream.
Greens looking to widen their audience might want to pay heed to this nugget from Olson, as well.
The environmental movement has created a very unlikable voice for this environmental message overall…it has not been crafted into the proper voice that is popular in broader society. It’s popular within the little clubs and things like that that work on this stuff, but not when you get out into the broader demographics.
Revkin then asks him:
The environmental movement through the 20th century was all built around two phrases that I’ve said we have to move past: those are woe is me and shame on you. If you wanted to experiment with an alternative phrase for the environmental movement, for green groups, any ideas.
Olson replied that foundations holding the purse strings had to be willing to fund experimental ideas. Their model, he said, should emulate evolutionary biology’s natural variation.
In his Dot Earth post, Revkin writes:
I agree with Olson, utterly, that there’s not enough experimentation, too much fear of failure and also far too much fear and misunderstanding at scientific institutions, from America’s universities to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, about the obligation and responsibility to engage the public in a sustained way. As I’ve put it here and elsewhere many times, it’s particularly important as traditional science journalism becomes a shrinking wedge of a growing pie of communication portals.
I encourage you to watch the video and/or read Olson’s provocative essay. You won’t agree with all of what he says. I don’t, and in fact I think that research revealing the human habit of embracing or ignoring information based on predispositions and emotion, not the information, is vitally important to convey (and needs to be conveyed more creatively, too!).
I second that. I’ll just add that I think the climate and environmental blogosphere could be playing a much bigger role in experimental communication approaches. But there’s too much of an echo chamber–especially in the climate blogopshere– and anyone who steps even a teensy out of line risks getting worked over by the climate capo and his band of loyalists.
Here’s the problem, Keith. You and Olson spend a lot of time talking to scientists about how the fundamental communication problem is not about detailed science.
You’re going after the wrong audience. As long as you make climate blogging about telling the scientists they’re doing it wrong, you’re completely marginalizing yourself. How about talking about how the politicians—the ones who have much bigger audiences and bully pulpits—that they’re communicating badly with the voters. If you could change John Kerry’s mind or Obama’s mind about the right way to get the message across, you’d have a much bigger impact than if you change Eli’s mind, or Tobis’s, or even Romm’s. Same goes for the journalists, not the science journalists in their little ghetto but the high-profile reporters and columnists: can you convince them that they’re missing out on a great story? Can you convince Nocera, Morgenson, Salmon, etc. that THE big business story is about financial implications of the energy and environment nexus?
Same goes for Randy Olson. He’s a scientist, talking to scientists about why it’s not all about science. If that’s true, Olson’s wasting his time. Ignore the scientists and go talk to important and influential people. Make movies that more than a few thousand people will watch (Heck, if Al Gore could sell millions of tickets how hard can that be?) Bottom line: If Olson believes what he says, then he needs to be talking to Laurie David and Lawrence Bender, not Andy Revkin.
Me? I’m a scientist. If it’s not about the science, then I don’t have anything very interesting to say to the public and the answer is not for me to pretend to be something else—someone who can connect global warming to getting laid—but for me to shut up and let someone else talk who does have some expertise on whatever the real issue is.
Jonathan, you put your finger on some things very important and which I’d like to take up in a separate post.
In the meantime, let me quickly respond with a few points:
1) What makes you think that scientists are my intended audience? I know that some of them read me, but truthfully, I’m casting a much wider net.
2) I never expect to be able to change Romm’s or Rabbet’s mind. They are locked in. (I still have hope for Tobis.) That said, Romm plays a big part in setting the terms of the debate with his heavy-handed style and by virtue of the fact that influentials like Friedman and Krugman quote him. So it helps to put out a counter perspective.
3) We can discuss the science and in fact, should continue to do so robustly. That has a prominent place in the larger debate; the question is, should it be the central place?
4) “If Olson believes what he says, then he needs to be talking to Laurie David and Lawrence Bender, not Andy Revkin.” Well, since Andy is probably one of the few journalists that call him up to discuss this stuff, I see that as a good thing. Additionally, Andy has a very prominent perch, and is a social media octopus. He has a big reach, so chances are, some of those folks who pay attention to his twitter feed (such leonardo DiCap) are also getting Randy’s message.
Make ’em Laugh!
I have little idea as to the degree the US populous in general are interested in, or concerned about the “issues”. But if they sufficiently exposed to the hyperbole and are fed up with it then entertain.
If there are major players that hold opposing extreme positions and would be instantly identifiable from a parody of their views and traits. Satirise them rotten!
If people are bored and iritated brighten up their day.
Situation comedy, mockumentaries, and satirical political sketches are ideal formats for exposing lunacy in general and extremism in particular, to the bright light of day, and opening up the middle ground as an island of sanity.
For certain, some on the extremes will not like it but if they be seen to be the sort that can’t take a joke they will just live up to their parodied stereotypes and margina;ise themselves.
Lampoon both extremes, and if you want to get a message across, and run a risk. Underly with the thought that the great people of a great country make good decisions when given the space to make up their own minds.
Alex
Keith
“When all else fails, put a Hot woman in it.” That was the advice of an advertising instructor I had in college. I know you are trying to talk about “communicating” and “messaging” but the cynic in me just sees it as Sales/Marketing. If you look at any sales/marketing campaign you will find four basic strategies used separately or in conjunction.
1. Quality/Trust of product or brand
2. Create mutual empathy
3. Affordability
4. Ego Stroke
The first three are openly talked about the last one only in sales meetings. Proponents have hit point 1 and 4 pretty hard, but have been terrible on point 2 (Revikin’s point)and try to disregard point 3. IMO point 3 is the main issue for the vast uncommitted on this issue and needs to be addressed in any future “messaging”. Simply saying to them “You can’t afford not to do it” won’t work.
Maybe Franny Armstrong and Richard Curtis have some innovative communication ideas. Their “No Pressure” video certainly communicated a message that people understood. So much so, it even went viral on the Internet. A couple more in that genre and communicating climate change will cease being a problem.
“… experiment with an alternative phrase for the environmental movement, for green groups…”
How about “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED” ?
No, seriously. What would success look like for enviros?
Most of their messages are along the lines of “turn your thermostat down by one degree to save the planet”. There are several thing wrong with this message: first they never say what the temperature should be – just lower than it is. Next the disconnection between my thermostat setting and the ‘old’ enviro issues of whales and rare birds etc. And then the nag nag nag nag nag aspect of it. It’s nobody else’s business whether my home is warm and cosy or not.
Environmentalism is the new christianity. But without any salvation. Death on the cross without resurrection. Sin without redemption.
Michael Crichton’s speech nails it:
“…If you suppress it [religion] in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.
“Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists…”
The domination of progressives in the political manifestations of climate science is an impediment to correct action. MT sees it. So do a lot of others. It frustrates them that theirs is not the way ahead.
Funny. On Lucia’s site I argued that the existence of back channels to coordinate messaging leads to a lack of innovative tactics.
I tend to agree with Olson, some people who believe in AGW should risk some new communication tactics and positions
Steven Mosher
Any suggestions on possible new tactics or positions? I mean this sincerely based on your comments at Lucia’s and over at MT’s place on the Okie’s thread.
My thoughts are that to grow support in the larger middle you have to disavow and repudiate the action of some of your smaller extreme supporters.
Another idea is that proponents have to acknowledge how tough the policy solutions are. You listed Tim Palmer,Hans Von Storch, Ben Santer, Peter Webster,Richard Alley, and Gerald A. Meehl as potential new spokespersons. Changing the package won’t make the dog like the food.
@8
could you say that in english please?
Marlowe,
Much of climate blogging is taken up with why the climate message is failing. Where the message meets politics, progressives have positioned themselves as defenders of science and arbiters of policy options. The marriage of climate and often hyper partisan actors makes the message easier to attack or dismiss. MT posted on this last week.
In the 2008 presidential election, Senator McCain had actually sponsored climate legislation and was long opposed to corn ethanol subsidies. Senator Obama had pointedly declined the invitation to work on climate legislation, was long an advocate of corn ethanol and so called clean coal, including the boondoggle Future-Gen project. The alternative deployment targets in his campaign energy white paper were less than the current trend.
Because partisans bring other agendas to the table, progressives backed Obama. I think it is fair to say they are, at this point, deeply disappointed.
Listen to the progressives.
10. I think disavowing is a bad tactic as it implies we all have to agree about certain things.
As for suggestions, it’s impossible to dictate innovation. I can say some things that dont appear to work
Steven
Thanks for responding but I have to disagree. Just so we are clear I am discussing tactics that would ultimately increase public support of CAGW and the methods needed to prevent it.
The Augment of innuendo WRT funding of scientist should be something that is disavowed. I have watched several public hearings where the main if only question an official had been how much funding from big oil did the witness have. The official might as well have asked the panelists. Are any of you or have any of you ever been a Science Whore for the Fossil Fuel Party? The net effect of this type questioning undermines all scientists in the public’s mind.
Another tactic would be to stop being complicity in the News Media philosophy of If it Bleeds it Leads. Scientist and Science would benefit by taking a much more measured response to any newly announced study . Journalist, editors like to move the story forward with nice little quotes and sound bites. Often I feel these money quotes don’t completely represent the views of the scientist quoted but damn sure support the headline. Proponents need to harshly criticize the pack for over running and scientist who encourage or tolerate it.
You said
“As for suggestions, it’s impossible to dictate innovation. I can say some things that don’t appear to work.”
With all due respect I feel that is a cop out. Based on your past comments I have felt that you have the ability to be objective and sometimes dispassionate(Keith too.) I do realize that by offering any opinions on what should be done will result in you getting hammered in the blogs and be used to discredit you going forward by both sides. IMHO everyone is willing to talk about the problems but very few have the courage to talk about the solutions. Again let me say I know both sides have a practice of getting ugly and I respect you for be willing to take that abuse I was just interested in your opinion. Still am too.
Well, a good first step would be to throw the hysterics like Hansen and Romm under a passing bus. They have lost all traction outside the choir.
A good second step would be to acknowledge that “climate science” is in its infancy and that claims of being able to detect a .01 degree C rise in average global temp or 1.12 mm ocean rise are bunkum.
Third, stop claiming that all weather is proof of AGW. It isn’t and even climate scientists know it. Coldwarm makes you all look very silly.
Fourth, be realistic about the cost and the benefits of reducing CO2. It is going to cost a lot and is very unlikely to make much difference. It may be worth doing for some relatively esoteric reason; but the costs are going to be borne by a recession weary world.
Fifth, give up on the windmills/solar will save us lunacy. It is simply too easy to notice the absence of any significant, constant, contribution of either to the energy supply.
Finally, get over the knee jerk response to paint skeptics as in the pay of “BIG OIL”. The good ones, the McIntyres, Mcintiricks, Watts and Bishop Hill don’t get a dime from anyone, much less “BIG OIL”. It just makes you sound paranoid to claim otherwise.
To communicate effectively you need a true story and a modest one. Admit the uncertainty. Cut out the BS scare routine – keep Laurie David as far from the action as possible.
At the moment, the AGW believers have lost politically. It is over.
If you want to restart, begin with a period of silence, a couple of years should about do it. Pray that the next IPCC Report is scientific rather than political. Begin a campaign on the most modest, easily defensible version of the science as you can find. Make no appeals to the discredited “Team” science and stick strictly to unspun, unadjusted facts.
In about ten years it is possible, assuming that the PDO is not too bad, that people will start listening again.
Steve McIntyre weighs in”
”
But quite aside from that, it seems to me that there is non-criminal conduct that Olson and Revkin should be encouraging from the climate science community, at least on an experimental basis.
Things like: archiving data when an article is published. Not refusing FOI requests with untrue excuses. Perhaps even not refusing FOI requests. Disclosing adverse data and results. Disowning practices like hide the decline. If an investigation is done, try including representatives of critics.” climate audit
Now, realistically, Steve seems to have been a rather more successful “commuicator” about climate change than Romm, Gavin and Man put together. People believe Steve. The Team could learn more than a little from his unfailing politeness and his general humility.
It’s a Canadian thing.
Gee, maybe it’s because the average “man in the street” isn’t as stupid as those pushing the agenda think he is?
After 20 odd years of “The world will end if we don’t do something right now!”, and “Ice Free Arctic by 2013” and “50 million climate refugees by 2010” with not a single prediction coming true, maybe nobody believes the alarmists any more.
Unfortunately for the pedagogues, people actually do think and do remember things. When you tell them 20 years ago that they have 10 years to act and “Save the World”, people see that nothing was done and the thermal armageddon failed to materialise on schedule. Credibility understandably drops.
The problem for the scientists is not what was said, but what wasn’t said. The vast majority of the doom and gloom didn’t come from the scientists, they came from the advocacy groups.
And speaking directly to the scientists now. You were very quick to join the disgusting “denialist” chorus. You were very quick to bag anybody that disagreed with you as untrained or stupid or in the pay of Big Oil.
Yet when the likes of Greenpeace exaggerated your findings, you said nothing. When things were blown out of proportion, you said nothing. When the IPCC used garbage in their report, you said nothing.
You gave up all pretence of being impartial and unbiased, the thing that the voting public relies on and trusts you to be. The general public has an idealised picture of what a scientist is. They believe that you will throw out a theory if the data contradicts it, because that’s how they were told science works. They believe you are impartial and that your personal opinions don’t matter because of “the way science works” and they believe this because you told them so.
They believe that they should trust a scientists over an advocate because science is objective and impersonal and is “true” while an advocate will spin things to suit their agenda and what they say shouldn’t be trusted. And then you became advocates.
You said that science progresses from the open sharing of data and knowledge, yet when people asked to see the data, you refused. You hid things and lied about it. From the POV of Joe Average, the only people who fight FOI requests are those who have something to hide.
And those not directly involved, as usual, said nothing. It’s the silence that damns you.
And you are surprised people have stopped listening?
/rant
The thing is that we know our scientists are smart people. The problem is that history is full of very smart people who were psychotic muderers or just plain barking mad. By not countering the extremists on your own side, we have to wonder about either ethics or sanity.
A simple example is this article from a couple of years ago. 4.5 Billion due to die from Global Waming by 2012. If Realclimate et al spent even half the time and effort countering this sort of rubbish as they do arguing about .1 of a degree in Antarctica, they could gain some credibility. Instead, junk gets a free pass. Always.