Straight talk

How scientists, media, and the public talk to - and about - each other.

RECENT POSTS

Farewell to Climatide

Well, this is it. The official last post on Climatide.

I could wax nostalgic about what an incredible experience the past eighteen months has been, both personally and professionally. About how much climate science I’ve crammed into my head. About how much more quickly I now write. About my new-found love of Twitter. Or about all the incredible people I’ve “met” (I put that word in quotation marks since I’ve never actually been in the physical presence of many of these people, just developed great online relationships).

But I won’t. At least not for too long. Here’s why. Just as moms are so fond of saying, when one door closes, another one opens. And that’s exactly what’s happening here.

As a graduate student at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, my teachers and mentors were constantly pushing me to consider my research at every possible scale, from the most myopic details to the most global implications. Maybe it’s an ocean thing. Many of the most important processes going on in the ocean are invisible – the morphing of one molecule into another, carried out by single-celled microscopic organisms. To truly understand how this happens, scientists must drill down to minute scales, studying single cells, a specific molecule, sometimes even individual electrons. But to truly appreciate the importance of what’s going on, one must step back and consider what happens when that single cell is multiplied by billions, trillions, or more. After all, the ocean is nothing if not vast, and it derives much of its power over the Earth’s basic functioning from its enormity.

After six years of having this lesson drilled into my head, I have always found it difficult to consider any question at just one scale. This has presented a real challenge for me as a blogger. Finding the necessary focus – defining a clear and manageable beat, or niche – is d@#$ed near impossible when every tiny detail seems crucial to the bigger picture, but also meaningless without the bigger picture to give it context; when being aware of events on the other side of the globe seems critical to understanding what’s going on in my own backyard, and vice versa .. you get the idea. No one individual can stay abreast of every scientific discovery and news event relating to the ocean or climate, and the attempt to do so can be exhausting. It can also be enlightening.

The swath of ocean and climate science I’ve surveyed through Climatide has made clear to me the fact that science, itself, is like a teenager – constantly changing and widely misunderstood. Technology, social media, and the increasing diversity of the scientific community are just a few of the factors influencing movements that are fast becoming catch phrases – citizen science, open science, art and science, crowd-funded science. Many scientists are taking a critical look at their own practices and inventing new, maybe better, ways to do science.

And the changes don’t stop there. The way that scientific findings make their way into the public realm and into our daily lives is also changing. Indeed, I see shifts in the whole relationship between the scientific community and the rest of the community playing out online and right here on Cape Cod. That’s really exciting to me.

So I’ve decided to take a step back from the nitty-gritty of climate change impacts and ocean pollution to explore some of these bigger questions for a while.

Ocean science is my first love, the lifeblood of Woods Hole (where I feel lucky to have worked in some capacity for going on fifteen years), and an obvious link to the coastal communities of Cape Cod and the Islands. And much of ocean science today is climate-related. So ocean and climate science will still feature heavily in my thoughts and writing.

But the focus won’t be on the results (what usually makes headlines) as much as the stories behind and beside the headlines. Who does scientific research? What drives them? What happens when scientists and non-scientists work together? And, of course, the ever-present question: why should I care if I’m not a scientist?

As much as possible, I’d like to get out of the way and let you tell your stories about science in your own words, photos, pottery .. whatever medium suits your fancy.

The home for all this soul-searching will be a new website – Living Lab Radio. The site is currently under construction, but check back frequently. I’m hoping to be up and running in a week or so, with further development and improvements to continue over the course of a few months. And, of course, you can always find me on Facebook and Twitter. So start sending your science experiences my way, and I’ll see you at the new site soon.

And, just in case you were wondering, yes. The new site’s name is a hat-tip to the fact that, starting in a few months, we’ll be taking to the airwaves as well as the interwebs. Stay tuned!

Mild winter highlights rift between climate scientists and the public

Scientists predict that Massachusetts could have the climate of the Carolinas by late this century if global warming continues unabated. With temperatures several degrees above average, this winter has brought a taste of what may be to come. And some wonder if that’s really such a bad thing. In the first installment of our four-part series, Cape Change: A Local Perspective on Global Warming, we explore the disparity between the scientific consensus and public opinion on climate change.



Jennifer Junker / WCAI

Blooming daffodils have been spotted around Cape Cod since early February.

Daffodils blooming, kite surfers out on the water, and garden-fresh broccoli at the farmer’s market. It all sounds more like May than February, and it’s gotten a lot of people wondering if this winter is global warming in action.

“What we’ve had this winter is weather, it’s not climate,” says Hector Galbraith, director of Climate Change Initiatives at the Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences. “But what we’ve seen this winter is maybe something like the sort of winter climate we can expect in 20 or 30 years, with less snowfall, milder temperatures, and some people might like that.”

Galbraith says he enjoys the warm weather as much as anyone. And he openly admits that climate change will benefit some people, at last in the short term. But it won’t be all roses – or early daffodils.

“People think of the climate change predictions as being slowly increasing temperature, everybody gets used to it, and adapts to it, and it seems okay,” says Galbraith. “But the major predictions from the climate models are to expect a greater frequency and intensity and duration of extreme events – floods, droughts, so on and so forth.”
Continue reading

Sh*t Journalists Say

There’s a perennial debate about who’s to blame for widespread confusion about the state of climate science – scientists incapable of speaking to a normal human being or journalists incapable of grasping the simplest scientific concept. Last year at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a panel discussion of climate communication devolved into prominent scientists and journalists engaging in behavior I’d sooner expect from my five year old (“Your fault!” “No, yours!”). The stereotyping and finger-pointing even showed up at Science Online 2012, a group I expected to be well past this.

Just personally, as a scientist-turned-journalist, it’s an argument I find rather pointless (I’ve rarely seen meaningful forward progress come from such blame games) and frustrating beyond words. That said, since I’ve posted the Sh*t Scientsts Say, this is only fair. It’s a list of words or phrases that journalists use (abuse?) but people never actually say, posted on the Fast Horse blog. Bob Ingrassia posts examples taken from Minneapolis’ Star Tribune paired with how he might use them at home. Here’s a taste:

Largely
Strib: “Construction activity last year was slightly better in 2011 than 2010, largely because of an increase in apartment construction.”

Journo Dad: “I’m largely done with fixing dinner.”

Critics contend
Strib: “Critics contend that young, developing businesses and smaller websites could be saddled with expensive litigation costs.”

Journo Dad: “Critics contend that you kids don’t hop into the tub when you’re supposed to.”

Altercation
Strib: “Police arrested a 22-year-old St. Paul man Sunday in connection with the death of another man, apparently after an altercation.”

Journo Dad: “I don’t want you kids getting into an altercation over who goes first.”

Ingrassia’s list goes on to include probe, blaze, and “white stuff” (which I failed at first to recognize as flowery longhand for the simple four-letter word “snow”), but is dwarfed by Mimi Burkhardt’s More Cliches Than You Can Shake a Stick At. Both are a good reminder that even the best professional writers and journalists can write or say stupid sh*t that nobody else understands. Indeed, the fact that the Sh*t People Say meme has been so popular suggests that just about any group you pick has jargon and slang that can render speakers unintelligible or ridiculous to outsiders. It’s not just scientists.

Rocks for jocks, the video

After a disappointing Superbowl, I’ve heard lots of New Englanders looking forward to spring training .. making this fabulous little video all the more apropos.

I’d love to see some social scientists evaluate whether this analogy could be even more effective than comparing carbon dioxide emissions to a blanket. It certainly seems more scientifically accurate.

Full STEAM ahead: when science and art connect

I’m very excited. This Sunday, I’m headed up to M.I.T. for ClimateArtPizza night. Eli Kintisch, a science writer/blogger for the journal Science and author of Hack the Planet, started hosting these fascinating evenings last fall but this is the first time I’ve been able to make it. The idea is to get climate scientists and artists (and others, otherwise I wouldn’t be on the invite list) in a room together for a couple of hours for some informal brainstorming of ways to accurately – and creatively – convey climate science to a broader audience.

This weekend, the theme is oceans and climate which, of course, is right up my alley. But, more than that, I’ve become completely intrigued by interactions between science and art. Here on Cape Cod, scientists and artists are both in abundant supply. Occasionally, their paths cross and something fabulous happens – pottery glazed with deep-sea sediments, or gorgeous photos of the really rather ugly process of taking apart a large dead whale (Yes, I’ve seen such photos. They were hanging in the stairwell at the Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies), to name a couple of examples.

I recently learned a great acronym for such things: STEAM. That’s STEM, the acronym for Science Technology Engineering and Math, with an A for Art in the middle. Since I first heard it at the Science Online conference last week, I’ve been finding it hard to resist the urge to shout “Full STEAM ahead!”

But back to ClimateArtPizza night … Coincidentally, The Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media today has a whole piece on Eli’s various projects delving into the realm of creative climate communication. It’s highly recommended reading, or perhaps I should say “viewing” as it’s full of great graphics and videos. This one taking on the complex and frought issue of our planet’s sensitivity to rising carbon dioxide by comparing it to people’s differing sensitivities to caffeine has to be my hands-down favorite. Enjoy!

A quick look at the State of (climate and energy in) the Union


A simple word cloud gives a good overview of President Obama’s third State of the Union address (and, no, I didn’t tell Wordle to make “energy” stick out the top of the graphic). “Job” or “jobs” clocked 40 mentions, while “energy” appeared 23 times … that captures the biggest themes of the speech. “Clean” came up 11 times. But a call to end subsidies for oil and extend tax breaks for renewables was set against an endorsement of an “all of the above” energy strategy, including expanded domestic oil drilling and natural gas fracking.
Notable, if not frequent, mentions include “climate change” (once, which is once more than last year) and “environment” (also just one utterance). Of course, any excitement over the fact that Pres. Obama actually managed to spit out the words “climate change” (there was some uncharacteristic stumbling involved) is tempered by the fact that it came in the context of admitting the divide in Congress is too deep to allow any action on the issue.
A mixed bag, to be sure.
What did you think of President Obama’s speech? If you missed it, you can find the full text here.

Does the world need more Mr. Spocks?

The Gulf oil spill is back in headlines this week. Yesterday, Kate Sheppard broke the news that the watchdog group PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility) has uncovered emails that suggest White House communications officials and one of the lead scientists on the government-appointed science panel deliberately low-balled estimates of the spill’s size. As Sheppard tells Countdown guest host David Shuster in the video below, getting that number right is important because it determines how much BP might be fined for the spill.

But there are also broader ramifications for the communication and public understanding of science. The underestimates repeatedly put forward by government officials undermined public trust and prompted a number of scientists to become vocal about their dissenting science, often using non-traditional outlets – blogs and self-published reports, rather than peer-reviewed journals – to get the word out. Disagreements about the actual numbers were accompanied by heated debates over the validity of unreviewed results and the appropriate way to disseminate scientific information. The public bickering between different research groups dismayed many scientists, who felt it misrepresented to the world the way the scientific community usually works.

Star Trek

Sadly, Kate Sheppard says she doesn’t get the impression many lessons were learned from the whole debacle. But that may be a touch overly pessimistic. In a complete coincidence, Wired.com ran an op-ed late last week by Dr. Chris Reddy, a chemist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution who studies oil spills and was intimately involved in both academic and government responses to the Gulf oil spill. Reddy is the ultimate media-savvy scientist, but he says that he has learned some tough lessons from his experiences trying to communicate oil spill science. In the end, Reddy has found a mentor in perhaps one of the best-known scientists of all time – Star Trek’s Dr. Mr. Spock. (An astute commenter pointed out that I mistakenly ascribed a Ph.D. to Spock.)

while Spock is mocked for his cool, dispassionate presentation of his thoughts, I’ve come to realize that this attitude is exactly what you want from a scientist during a crisis, whether it’s a massive oil spill or a long-term threat like climate change.

What people miss even more about Spock is that, beneath it all, he is one of the most emotional and passionate characters on the program.

Not buying it? Here’s Reddy’s argument:

Spock is more passionate about science than Dr. McCoy is about medicine or Mr. Scott is about the Enterprise. Watch any episode and you can see Spock’s intensity when he investigates whether there is life on a planet or if the Enterprise will explode. The deal is: Spock is passionate about doing science, but — and perhaps this is where the disconnect occurs — dispassionate about presenting what the data tell him.

Keeping one’s cool, regardless of impending doom and panicked questioners, is a skill that Reddy says he wishes could have mustered more of when talking to reporters about his work on the Gulf oil spill.

The best of the 2011 best-ofs

A new world map complete with a new country - South Sudan - topped the DataBlog's year in review.

DataBlog / guardian.co.uk

A new world map complete with a new country - South Sudan - topped the DataBlog's year in review.

It used to be an annual tradition for my husband or father-in-law to buy me a copy of the year’s Best American Science and Nature Writing. That particular volume didn’t appear under the Christmas tree this year, and it made me realize that my end-of-year routine has changed. Instead of burying my nose in a great anthology, I now spend the month or so around the change of the year staring intently at my computer screen reading ‘best of’ list-icles. Read enough of them and it can make a person start wondering why we bother reading anything the other eleven months of the year … why not just wait for the best-of list?

Anyway, the stream of 2011 ‘best of’ lists is slowing to a trickle, so I thought I’d share my favorites.

  1. Miller-McCune’s Top Stories of 2011: From science teachers’ reticence to stand up for evolution and climate change, to the degraded perception of breastfeeding moms, the government shutdown, and the end of the world … fascinating reads, one and all.
  2. Best of 2011: The Observatory: Curtis Brainard rounds up Columbia Journalism Reviews’ best science journalism analyses of the year. Impeccably researched and insightful pieces that illuminate both the science at hand and the craft of communicating it.
  3. The top green and gristy stories of 2011: Grist has an angle, no question there. But there’s also no denying they’ve got their fingers firmly on the pulse of both news and trends in sustainability. And Lisa Hymas manages to condense thirteen of the biggest stories of 2011 into one pithy paragraph each.
  4. 2011: The year in data, journalism (and charts): I’m a sucker for the data visualizations the Guardian’s DataBlog cranks out, so their end-of-year roundup was shoe-in. The Occupy movement – here and abroad – occupies (sorry, couldn’t resist) a large chunk of real estate here, but Fukushima, the world’s newest country, and government requests for Google user info (among others) also make an appearance.
  5. Year in Review: Science Stories of 2011: For fellow NPR junkies and audiophiles, Ira Flatow’s Science Friday year in review show is an enjoyable – and extremely wide-ranging – discussion of some of the year’s top science stories.

I could go on and on. Scientific American provides a pretty straight-up top ten. For a dip into the arcane, try Ed Yong’s top 30. And if you still haven’t had enough (!?!), the intrepid Knight Science Journalism Tracker, Charlie Petit, has a comprehensive list of lists. Now if someone would just put together a top ten of XKCD comic strips …

2011: The year climate change disappeared?

Year-in-review articles are still popping up here, there, and everywhere. The Daily Climate today takes a broad view of media coverage on the topic of climate change:

Media coverage of climate change continued to tumble in 2011, declining roughly 20 percent from 2010′s levels and nearly 42 percent from 2009′s peak, according to analysis of DailyClimate.org’s archive of global media.

Douglas Fischer’s story is chock-full of statistics. Here are a few highlights:

  • The 20% decline holds for the number of outlets publishing climate stories, the number of reporters covering the beat, and the number of stories individual reporters filed.
  • The three major networks gave the topic a combined total of 32.5 minutes of airtime spread over 14 stories. That’s down from 90.5 minutes last year, and 386 minutes in 2007.
  • Despite some noteworthy, strongly-worded editorials in major news outlets like Washington Post and USA Today, The Daily Climate finds that the total number of climate-related editorials dropped by half from 2010 to 2011.
  • The exception to the rule was the Australian press. Coverage by Australia Broadcasting Corp. and Sydney Morning Herald increased 60% and 21%, respectively, over 2010 levels.

A few reporters are still on the beat, though. Fiona Harvey at Financial Times The Guardian and NY Times’ DotEarth blogger Andy Revkin logged the most bylines this year – 132 and 118, respectively. NY Times’ Matthew Wald, BBC’s Richard Black, and Politico’s Darren Samuelson rounded out the top five. Of course, with the exception of Andy Revkin, that doesn’t include bloggers – the ranks and rhetoric of which remain strong.

UPDATE: Stephen Leahy sent a letter to the editors at The Daily Climate pointing out that simply looking at American mainstream media fails to paint the whole picture. Climate change coverage by reporters from developing and non-English-speaking countries is booming, he says. And web-based, topic-focused sites and services are increasingly important news sources.

Scientists and diplomats a world apart on climate

Photos courtesy of American Geophysical Union (left) and United Nations (right)

Two very different climate change meetings wrapped up last week. In San Fransisco, the topic was science (left). In Durban, it was politics (right).

Cross-posted in full from The Daily Climate.

By Douglas Fischer

SAN FRANCISCO – Nearly 36,000 people gathered last week in two groups on opposite ends of the Earth to discuss the same thing: Our planet and our future. But their responses are starkly divergent.

One group – scientists at the American Geophysical Union meeting drilling ever deeper into the evidence – said, in broad terms, ‘Change is worse than we thought.’ The other group – delegates at the United Nationsclimate talks – countered, ‘Mañana.’

We shouldn’t kid ourselves that action is happening. The atmosphere isn’t going to wait for the negotiators to get it right.

-Lance Pierce, CERES

I’ve been to both meetings, which happen annually in the fall. And I’ll confess that I most enjoy the excitement infusing the onset of both gatherings: Two polyglot affairs, the atmosphere charged with creative energy. At AGU, it’s a sense of discovery. At the UN talks, it’s a potential to shape the globe’s future.

Different values color each meeting. The AGU meeting now draws 20,000 scientists annually to parse the data, looking for science’s cutting edge. The UN talks gather 16,000 delegates and others to hash and rehash negotiating texts, trying to find common ground.

Both science and diplomacy are hard, intense endeavors. The limits of human knowledge do not yield easily. By the end of both meetings, the freshness in those cavernous halls grows stale; exhaustion fills the air.

Continue reading