Has climate science moved from prediction to explanatory mode?

I have a pair of Narwhal fingerpuppets. I win.

After the idea that “academic freedom is bullshit”, another interesting line I heard at SciFoo which has stuck in my mind: ecologist Ken Caldiera remarking that climate science was increasingly moving from prediction to explanatory mode. Today’s editorial in the Independent – suggesting their was a pause in concern of global warming but it’s back on the adenda – and George Monbiot’s column – on Arctic ice melt and celebrating heroism of Greenpeace activists – reminded me of it.

Having just re-read Spencer Weart’s great The Discovery of Global Warming, I’m not sure Caldiera’s statement exactly holds. There wasn’t a single “eureka” moment when it came to climate change (or perhaps “oh bugger” is a better term than “eureka” in this context). Rather, the science gradually unraveled and spread and was checked, used and believed in difference places at different times as climate scientists engaged in ongoing interlinking processes of discovery, explanation, prediction for well over a century. It continues to do this, and will probably continue to do so, albeit with different degrees of stabilisation. This is a classic study of how science works, possibly even more than like “the Pasteurization of France“;.

Still, I thought Caldeira’s idea was interesting, and there are a few different ways we might take it which were worth fleshing out.

We can read Caldiera’s statement as a rather depressing one about change to the planet. Climate change is increasingly shifting from something that is likely to happen or happening in hard-to-spot ways to something that is already causing perceptible changes which people in positions of power might start asking questions about. Thus, those who study the science of climate change – climate scientists – go from people who have special equipment, knowledge and methods for spotting what we’d not otherwise see to using these resources to explaining what we’ve done.

Alternatively, we might see it more as a shift in the actions of scientists. Whether climate change is more or less obvious (or happening at all, if that’s a debate that rocks your boat) isn’t so interesting here as a shift to scientists coming out of their labs to tell everyone else about it, sometimes repeating forcefully things they’ve said for years, but with an awareness that they don’t just need to say, they need to be heard.

With Caldier’s talk spinning round my head, it was interesting to see Chris Rapley writing for the FT (paywall-ish) arguing for more strident talk on climate change. This states quite plainly there are significant risks involved in climate change, that this already discussed in private between scientists, business people and politicians, and the public need to hear it too. It complains that there’s a “tacit understanding among responsible commentators that nothing too shocking should be said about climate may end”, arguing that any idea that climate is too contentious and complex a topic for a non-expert commentator to tackle is just wrong, and any fears that any honest appraisal of the possible course of events risks the charge of alarmism is simply a poor excuse.

I’ve rehearsed some of the reasons why communicating climate science is hard before: it’s abstract, slow moving, requires behaviour change, could be funded better (ahem) and has a committed set of “Merchants of Doubt” to contend with. There are many reasons why scientists won’t stick their neck out when it comes to taking uncomfortable messages to the public, especially on climate science. It’s oft-repeated cynicism that science progresses one obit at a time. I’d take a slightly cheerier view that, as a highly social beast, science progresses through peer pressure. People like Rapley and Caldiera provide some headline statements which may help other climate scientists come out of their shell, and I’d say that’s probably a good thing.

Finally though, I should say that I’m not entirely comfy with the notion of scientists simply explaining. I worry that this sets up a rather patronizing relationship with a imaginary passive “public”, which is unlikely to be very successful, as PR strategies go. Moreover, the social, economic, political and cultural change required needs more than scientific voices. It’s bigger than just knowing what is happening to the planet, even if that is a component to the core of the issue. Discussion of MMR happened in playgrounds as much as in newsprint and doctors’ surgeries, GMO and BSE policy played out in supermarkets as much as Whitehall. I guess the aim should be productively linking scientists to these conversations I wish I knew the best way to do this, but I suspect there are many, and more and more people are working on it.

Working in science communication

Part of my job over the last year has involved giving careers advice to people thinking about working full-time in science communication.

Every case is an individual, but there are some tips I have found myself repeating, so I thought I’d list them here. I also hoped other people might chip in to the comments with anything I’m missing.

So, you want to work in science communication?

• Are you sure?
• Really?
• You’re not under the impression it’s an easy alternative to a research job, without leaving your comfort zone of science? Good, because it isn’t.
• You want to write? Get a blog.
• You want to run events? Set one up then.
• Maybe audio or film is more your thing? You probably have access to basic film or at least audio equipment through your desktop computer, if not your phone. Have a play. Make something.
• Find others like you to do these things with, or at very least act as an editor and give feedback on your work (and let you edit them – you’ll learn loads from this experience).
• Student? Join in student media.
• Researcher? Run a project with your group.
• Seriously, you’ll learn by doing. Do. Make something.
• Don’t just produce though, you will also need to become an avid and critical consumer of the sorts of science communication you want to work in. Listen. Read. Watch. Have a look around the NCCPE site. How else can you tell you’re going to contribute something original if you don’t know what’s already occupying the field?
• Learn the jargon. Make sure you learn what these terms mean and why they are used (i.e. don’t just learn them off to decorate your vocabulary). The amount of jargon in the field can be really annoying, but it will help unlock ideas as well as professional networks.
• Appreciate the history of work in science communication, including the history of thinking about the issues surrounding it (this post might help, and this reading list). Just because you see problems as yet unsolved, doesn’t mean people haven’t been trying for decades. Their failure to fix things isn’t necessarily because these people are rubbish, it’s hard work that takes a long time. It’s also often that they’ve decided that the real problems aren’t the obvious ones, so have been dealing with other things instead
• If you’ve worked in science for a while, this may well be useful, but you will need to learn to think outside the little community of your old research field. You will have to starting thinking not only about a range of different areas of science, but a range of different perspectives on it, some of which may well be critical of some areas of science.
• Read Ed Yong’s collection of ‘origin stories’ for science writers.
• Brits: have a look through Jo Brodie’s Science Communication jobs site – it’ll give you an idea of the sorts of jobs available in the field and what they are looking for, even if you’re not quite on the job market yourself yet.
• Look around for small courses run by your university/ funder. These vary a lot, but can be excellent. At the very least, they provide some time to reflect on science communication issues and you should meet other people who are interested in the area, who you can learn from.
• If you are a UK researcher, you should think about applying for the British Science Association Media Fellowship. If you aren’t a UK researcher, look around for other similar opportunities.
• Think about one of the MSc courses in the field (for example). You really don’t need one to work in the field (I don’t have one), but it helps. A good one will provide a network of contacts in the field, some chance to reflect on what science communication is and means to society, and where in this world you feel most at home. It will also challenge you to push your thinking and technical skills further than most people can on their own.
• Join professional groups like the ABSW or STEMPRA and try to attend local meetups (look out for science tweetups in your area, they tend to be full of science communication people).
• Ask yourself: Are you sure?
• Really? Ok. Good luck!