I recently wrote a blog arguing that scientists should be allowed to show emotion when it comes to communicating climate change. I firmly believe that this is what's needed -  but it's important to do it right.

Doing it right
Deputy Director of the Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science, Rod Lamberts, recently published an article in The Conversation. He points out that scientists need to be aware of two things when trying to communicate climate change; who their audience is and what their goals are.

ITHYF’s audience is the apathetic and disengaged. People that may be aware of the existence of climate change but don’t see the relevance to their own lives, or just don’t see it as a problem. Our goal is to raise awareness of climate change in this audience and to combat apathy. This is a big challenge, even the scientists feel apathetic sometimes.

It’s not all about fear
Something that struck me as suprising whilst collecting and compiling all the letters for this project was the vast number of emotions being expressed by the scientists. I expected fear to dominate.

Fear is a valid emotion, but it can lead to more apathy.  Fear of something that is seen as 'too hard' to change can lead to people simply altering their own outlook and ignoring the real problem.

Certainly some scientists have said they are scared, even angry. But many have shown optimism too. Many researchers are still hopeful that we as a global community can work together and turn this disaster around.

And thing is, we can do something about climate change, but we need to do it now.

Progress
A selection of ITHYF letters were recently shown at ANU’s Photospace Gallery. Many viewers indicated that the exhibition made them want to learn more, and do something about climate change. I feel this letter, left by an individual who viewed the exhibition, is evidence that we are achieving something;

Flickr/Bert Kaufmann CC BY 2.0

Statistics are sterile, unrelatable and many people either don’t know the facts on climate change, or just don’t care.  If you tell them that CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere are fast approaching 400ppm or that Antarctica is losing 160 billion tonnes of ice every year they reply with ‘so what?’.

This information doesn’t make the vast majority of people want to change the way they live. Yes, the facts are important, scientists know climate change is a real problem because the facts say so. But the facts aren’t convincing everyone.

Veritasium explores this in his recent video entitled Climate Change is Boring;

We know climate change is real and we know that the time to act is now. How do we pass this message on to the rest of the world?

Maybe we get people to engage emotionally?

Hang on, scientists need to be precise!
I'm not saying scientists should stop being clinical and exact in how they talk with other scientists, this precision is vital in the industry. It leads to new discoveries and the furthering of collective knowledge, but it may not be the most effective method for communicating with everyone outside of science. 

Emotions are real. People experience fear, anger, determination, hope every single day and they can empathise with people feeling the same way. The scientists that have written letters for ITHYF are having all these same emotions, they are real human beings with real emotions. But the scientists aren’t feeling this way about looming deadlines or relationship issues. They are feeling this way about the future their children will have to live in. About the fate of our planet.

Scientists should be allowed to be emotive
Climate change awareness is a battle. A battle against apathy and indifference, but also a battle against something much more sinister. There is a small but very vocal group of people out there whose sole goal is to misinform and mislead the general public about climate change. These people don’t have to use the facts, they don’t have to even use the real data. They can cherry-pick from graphs, or even tell flat out lies in an attempt to mislead the greater public. To what end, who knows. 

How can scientists compete with liars, snake-oil salesmen and spin doctors who don’t have to fight by the same rules?

Is it time the scientists took a new tactic? Maybe they should start fighting fire with fire. I wonder how much different a television debate would be if the climate scientists were allowed to throw in the occasional; 

‘Our models show that you are an ignorant git’… 

Maybe scientists should start picketing the streets, unfurling banners and screaming chants until we start taking notice of what they’re saying.

This probably wouldn’t work. Scientists aren’t here to fling mud in petty debates nor are they here to cause civil unrest. They are here to research the world around us, because they are innately curious, thoughtful and determined individuals. But maybe if they start speaking just a little louder and with a bit more passion, people will listen...

Researchers will often start their defence of climate science with “97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is happening and that humans are to blame…”

And they’re right.

But what do they mean?

Researchers have gone back through the scientific literature and reviewed around 4,000 of the recent articles that state a position on climate change. Turns out that a little over 97 percent of these articles state that climate change is being caused by humans.

This is important.

It shows that the experts agree on the science.

Now we can stop arguing and start working towards a solution.

It’s not that easy

Getting the word out that the scientists agree is actually quite difficult, the media continue to give a voice to climate deniers who refuse to accept the scientific consensus, they argue loudly using misinformation and spin leaving the public uncertain of what to believe.

But there are people working to provide everyone with the correct information.

The Consensus Project is one such organisation dedicated to spreading the consensus message. Information about what they're doing and why can be found here.

This entire argument is perhaps best summed up by John Oliver...

I think the take home message is this: Trust the scientists. If 97 percent of doctors said you needed to take a pill to lower your blood pressure, you would. If 97 percent of builders said your house wasn’t structurally sound, you’d do something about it. 

We trust these people because they’re experts.

Trust the scientists.