A while back Chris Mooney, author of The Republican War on Science, offered some sound advice to climate scientists about “good climate communication”. Basically, if you’re a climate scientist who wants society to take your data seriously, you have to be something of a political scientist too. Mooney spotlights the Evangelical Climate Initiative as an example of good climate communication that can reach a broader constituency. It’s something that’s “not what you’d expect”. The name itself breaks a popular stereotype about who cares about climate — and a stereotype about evangelicals: that they’re inherently anti-science.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Climate scientists have understandably been too busy being scientists — but Mooney suggests that they need to engage people with more than cold rational data. They’re hurting their cause by not treating it like a cause — sometimes even like a “war room”. Mooney wants climate scientists to get “in the game”.

Last week some creative climate scientists heeded that call. Okay, this video is probably designed to reach a slightly different audience than the Evangelical Climate Initiative’s base. But there are plenty of audiences to activate in this struggle. Enjoy…

Click here to view the embedded video.

Attempts by the Obama administration to regulate greenhouse gases are highly unpopular here because of opposition to large-scale government intervention. Some are skeptical that humans might fundamentally alter a world that was created by God.

If the heartland is to seriously reduce its dependence on coal and oil, Ms. Jackson and others decided, the issues must be separated. So the project ran an experiment to see if by focusing on thrift, patriotism, spiritual conviction and economic prosperity, it could rally residents of six Kansas towns to take meaningful steps to conserve energy and consider renewable fuels.

via In Kansas, Climate Skeptics Embrace Green Energy – NYTimes.com.

Arnold Schwarzenegger makes it sexy.

“I think that I have the talent of speaking the language in such a way so that the world understands it rather than making it complicated,” he said.

But don’t expect to see Schwarzenegger touring an Al Gore-style scientific slideshow. The governator’s version of environmental leadership hinges on avoiding mention of the words climate change or greenhouse gas emissions, which he thinks are a turn-off for some people. “People get stuck and fall in love with their slogans and with their little agendas,” he said. “You’ve got to make it hip. You’ve got to make it sexy to be part of this movement.”

Click to play or download here: Al Gore On Creative Activism.

Reporters could do better, but isn’t it also the scientists’ responsibility to help distill complex scientific issues for the rest of us? Ten years ago, Jane Lubchenco, Obama’s pick to head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, created the Leopold Leadership Program at Stanford University to sharpen scientists’ communication skills. Pam Matson is the current director. She says scientists have a lot to learn about getting their message across.

PAM MATSON: Well, I think it’s a special problem of scientists because we are taught how to communicate with one audience, and that is our audience, other scientists. We’re taught to provide lots of background information. We focus on the details of how we do the research, the uncertainty around our results, and then only at the very end do we talk about the conclusions, the bottom line. And so, I think most of us have to be taught to turn that around if we’re talking to the public, talking to decision makers of any sort, to put the bottom line up front.
On The Media: Transcript of “The Science of Media Relations” February 13, 2009

• In a study of college students, aesthetic and economic arguments were not found to alter views on protecting particular endangered species, but ethics, morality, importance to the environment and one’s ability to make a difference were all effective arguments. (Brackney and McAndrew, 2001)
• Knowledge of wildlife is very low for those earning under $15,000 per Year, relatively high in all high income groups. Naturalistic and ecologistic attitudes become more prevalent with higher income, utilitarian and negativistic become less common. Moralistic attitudes tend to drop with income over $50,000 (Kellert 1980).
• Higher levels of knowledge correlate with higher income levels (NEETF. 1999). Income was found to correlate positively with environmental knowledge” and environmental world view (Arbury and Christianson, 1993)
• Support for further endangered species regulation -47% of urban population, 40% of rural population. NEETF 1999
• Kids from disadvantaged areas tend to be more concerned with issues that directly affect them, as opposed to advantaged kids who have a stronger attitude toward protecting plants and animals (NEETF 1994)
• Real change usually emerges from educational strategies that give the learner a sense of involvement and ownership. Hallmarks of effective EE programs include hands-on activities, investigational approaches, out-of-the-classroom experiences, and student-directed learning. Too few of our schools make use of these approaches, relegating EE to a traditional lecture- style, “information only” format. Teachers need to be trained in these more sophisticated forms of student-directed instruction. Environmental literacy in America p13
• “This study finds that a higher level of environmental knowledge correlates significantly with a higher degree of pro-environment behavior. But increased knowledge, by itself, has real limitations. Increased environmental knowledge works best for simple, easy information and behaviors such as consumer decisions or saving water and electricity.” Environmental literacy in America P. 13