climate change communication resources

7 views
Skip to first unread message

Glenn Hampson

unread,
Feb 16, 2018, 3:11:24 PM2/16/18
to James Gover, SCI...@listserv.nsf.gov, rsc...@googlegroups.com

Hi Jim,

 

Following up on your question from last Friday, here are a few climate change communication resources that may be helpful. This isn’t an exhaustive list by any means---maybe others can add on here:

 

  • George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication (https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/). “Our mission is to develop and apply social science insights to help society make informed decisions that will stabilize the earth’s life-sustaining climate, and prevent further harm from climate change. To achieve this goal, our center engages in three broad activities: we conduct unbiased communication research; we help government agencies, civic organizations, professional associations, and companies apply social science research to improve their public engagement initiatives; and we train students and professionals with the knowledge and skills necessary to improve public engagement with climate change.”
  • Yale Program on Climate Change Communication (http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/). “We are social scientists studying the causes and consequences of public opinion and behavior. We help governments, media, companies, and advocates communicate more effectively. And we publish an online climate news service and daily national radio program, Yale Climate Connections.”
  • Climate Communication Science & Outreach (http://climatecommunication.org). “Climate Communication is a non-profit science and outreach project supported by a grant from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Climate Communication operates as a project of the Aspen Global Change Institute, a non-profit organization dedicated to furthering the scientific understanding of Earth systems and global environmental change.
  • National Park Service Climate Change Interpretation and Education Strategy (https://www.nps.gov/subjects/climatechange/nccies.htm). “The 2016 National Climate Change Interpretation and Education Strategy [6.5 MB PDF] advances four broad goals and supporting actions as a systematic approach for communicating about the science and impacts of climate change across the National Park System. The strategy aims to help parks engage in place-based climate change programming that encourages park staff and visitors to discover personal relevance to climate change and share those connections broadly with others. To support these efforts, the Climate Change Communication Toolkit (3CT) has been developed as an online companion to the strategy, supporting interpretation and education personnel with resources that facilitate the inclusion of climate change topics in programming. The 3CT is organized across five broad topics that provide resources designed to help communicators make their messages both relevant and local.”
  • Columbia University Center for Research on Environmental Decisions (http://guide.cred.columbia.edu/). In 2009, CRED published “The Psychology of Climate Change Communication”: http://guide.cred.columbia.edu/pdfs/CREDguide_full-res.pdf. This guide “powerfully details many of the biases and barriers to scientific  communication and information processing. It offers a tool—in combination with rigorous science, innovative engineering, and effective policy design—to help our societies take the pivotal actions needed to respond with urgency and accuracy to  one of the greatest challenges ever faced by humanity: global-scale, human-induced  environmental threats, of which the most complex and far reaching is climate change.”
  • NOAA’s climate.gov website (https://www.climate.gov/). “NOAA Climate.gov provides science and information for a climate-smart nation. Americans’ health, security, and economic well-being are closely linked to climate and weather. People want and need information to help them make decisions on how to manage climate-related risks and opportunities they face. NOAA Climate.gov is a source of timely and authoritative scientific data and information about climate. Our goals are to promote public understanding of climate science and climate-related events, to make our data products and services easy to access and use, to provide climate-related support to the private sector and the Nation’s economy, and to serve people making climate-related decisions with tools and resources that help them answer specific questions.”
  • AAAS “What We Know” program (http://whatweknow.aaas.org/). “The What We Know initiative is dedicated to ensuring that three “R’s” of climate change communicated to the public. The first is Reality — about 97% of climate experts have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening. The second is Risk — that the reality of climate change means that there are climate change impacts we can expect, but we also must consider what might happen, especially the small, but real, chance that we may face abrupt changes with massively disruptive impacts. The third R is Response — that there is much we can do and that the sooner we respond, the better off we will be.”

 

I hope you are be able to find some resources on these websites that will help. I don’t have an exhaustive list of specific resources created by government agencies to empower the STEM community on this issue, as you asked, but:

 

 

Best regards,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

osi-logo-2016-25-mail

2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org

 

 

From: Glenn Hampson [mailto:gham...@nationalscience.org]
Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 4:38 PM
To: 'James Gover' <jgo...@KETTERING.EDU>; 'SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV' <SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV>
Cc: 'rsc...@googlegroups.com' <rsc...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [scisip] Canada's three chief scientist advisors

 

Hi Jim,

 

This is another great question well outside my wheelhouse---sorry. I will defer to the good folks on this list and off who have actual experience putting together the NexGen scicomm approach to climate change conversations. Y’all know who you are (I’ve spoken with one person off-list already today)---please do take the baton here. In a nutshell, this strategy goes way beyond Powerpoint shows and op ed pieces. It’s a real hearts and minds effort to speak with people where they are, and there are a number of good efforts underway. If no one chimes in by Monday or so Jim, I’ll try to do my best to pull together an answer for you (but again, I’m not the expert here).

 

Sincerely,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

osi-logo-2016-25-mail

2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org

 

 

 

From: Science of Science Policy Listserv [mailto:SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV] On Behalf Of James Gover
Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 4:15 PM
To: SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV
Subject: Re: [scisip] Canada's three chief scientist advisors

 

Thank you for your reply.

 

On your first point, what might change global warming communications for the better and what can I do?  So far, I believe that a power point file supported by a lengthy written tutorial lecture would be an excellent way to start.  I have seen these used in IEEE conferences to help researchers and managers gain a better understanding of the "big picture".  NSF should have the knowledge to prepare these; I and other techies can link these to the public through a variety of mechanisms including writing op eds for our local papers.  Agencies need to pay more attention to how they can empower the STEM community.  You must have other ideas that you can share?

 

On your second point, I thought you were talking about journals with strong reputations, e.g., IEEE Transactions.

 

On your third point, I was talking about policy-making including science policy.

jim

 

On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 3:21 PM, Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:

Hi Jim,

 

Thanks for your email. Here are my replies:

 

  • IN MY EYES, YOUR FIELD, IN-PARTICULAR,  AND FEDERAL AGENCIES CONDUCTING CLIMATE SCIENCE RESEARCH, IN GENERAL, HAVE DROPPED THE BALL ON THE CLIMATE CHANGE COMMUNICATIONS ISSUE.
    • You’re absolutely right. In fact, there are some communications researchers who have noted that the way the science communicators and the science community have pushed back on science deniers has been exactly wrong. In particular, the snarky, we’re-smarter-than-you approach has only made deniers become more entrenched. We need a new playbook for communicating science that doesn’t involve dismissing non-scientists and non-scientific concerns.
  • MISTAKES ARE SOMETIMES MADE, BUT FRAUDULENT WORK RARELY PASSES JOURNAL PEER AND EDITOR REVIEW.  I CANNOT IMAGINE THIS TO BE A REAL PROBLEM.
    • To the contrary Jim, this is actually a growing problem and a real threat to science. The Internet Age, coupled with open access reform, increasing research, and increasing specialization, have together brought about an explosion in scholarly publishing. A great deal of this new publishing doesn’t follow the norms and traditions science depends upon. Cursory editorial review is often substituted for actual peer review, the credentials of these reviewers is often faked, and pay-to-play journals will publish anything for a fee. The US Federal Trade Commission recently took action to shut down the activities of OMICS, one of the most egregious scammers in the scholarly publishing environment.
  • POLICY-MAKING IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY REQUIRES ALL OPINIONS TO BE WEIGHED. 
    • Naturally. But science itself is not a democracy. It’s a meritocracy. You’re referring to policy-making. I’m referring to the deliberative process inside science.

 

With best regards,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

osi-logo-2016-25-mail

2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org

image001.jpg

Glenn Hampson

unread,
Feb 17, 2018, 2:05:35 PM2/17/18
to rsc...@googlegroups.com

This is a really great list. Thanks David! I’m pasting it below:

  1. Climate Literacy and Energy Awareness Network (CLEAN): http://cleanet.org/
  2. US Global Change Research Program "Resources for Educators”: http://www.globalchange.gov/browse/educators
  3. NOAA's "Teaching Climate”: https://www.climate.gov/teaching
  4. "Going Green! - Middle Schoolers Out to Save the World" is funded by NSF: https://msosw.wikispaces.com/
  5. NASA's "Global Climate Change - Vital Signs of the Planet": https://climate.nasa.gov/resources/education/
  6. The National Ocean Service's "Talking to Children about Climate Change”: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/climate-stewards/talking-about.html
  7. "Teaching about Climate Change" from Carlton College, sponsored by NSF: http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/climatechange/index.html
  8. "Climate Change Live" with many federal "partners”: https://climatechangelive.org/index.php
  9. NASA's "Climate Kids”: https://climatekids.nasa.gov/menu/teach/
  10. "Climate Change Activities" from UCAR, sponsored by NSF: https://scied.ucar.edu/climate-change-activities
  11. "Climate and Global Change" by the National Earth Science Teachers Association, sponsored by NASA and NOAA: http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/climate.html
  12. "Climate Change Education" by Stanford's School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences, funded by NASA: https://pangea.stanford.edu/programs/outreach/climatechange/
  13. "Climate Change" from AAAS, sponsored by NSF: http://sciencenetlinks.com/collections/climate-change/
  14. "TEACHER RESOURCES" from the Alliance for Climate Education, includes OSTP, NOAA and EPA as "Partners”: https://acespace.org/teachers/resources
  15. "Climate Change and Human Health Lesson Plans" by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIH: https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/scied/teachers/cchh/
  16. "Climate Change 101" (video) with Bill Nye | National Geographic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtW2rrLHs08
  17. "There is no Planet B" by Teach Climate Change: http://teachclimatechange.org/
  18. "Classroom Resources" from the National Center for Science Education: https://ncse.com/classroom-resources
  19. "Climate Science Resources" from the National Science Teachers Association: http://www.nsta.org/climate/
  20. "Climate Change" from Practical Action: https://practicalaction.org/climate-change-resources
  21. "Climate Change Resources" from the National Wildlife Federation: https://www.nwf.org/Eco-Schools-USA/Become-an-Eco-School/Pathways/Climate-Change/Resources.aspx
  22. "Cornell Climate Change" from Cornell (sponsors unknown): http://climatechange.cornell.edu/tools-resources/youth-education/
  23. "Teaching About Climate Change With The New York Times" by The Learning Network: https://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/02/teaching-about-climate-change-with-the-new-york-times/comment-page-1/?_r=0
  24. "Climate Change - Student Resources" from Lehigh University's Environmental Initiative: http://www.ei.lehigh.edu/learners/cc/
  25. "Climate Change Education: Essential Information for Educators" from the National Education Association: http://www.nea.org/home/65564.htm
  26. "Climate Change" from the University of California, Berkeley's Global Systems Science: http://www.globalsystemsscience.org/studentbooks/cc
  27. "Climate Change" by KQED Science: https://ww2.kqed.org/quest/tag/climate-change/
  28. "Activities for Responding to global climate change" by the Nuffield Foundation: http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/science-society/activities-responding-global-climate-change
  29. "Climate Change" from BP Educational Service (an oil company!): http://bpes.bp.com/collection/climate-change
  30. "Climate Change Lesson Plans: Exploring the Evidence" by Michigan State's W. K. Kellogg Biological Station: https://www.kbs.msu.edu/2017/02/climate-plans-k-12/
  31. "Educators' Resource Corner: Climate Change" from the Wisconsin Center for Environmental Education: http://eeinwisconsin.org/resource/about.aspx?s=93380.0.0.2209
  32. "Education Resources" from Southern Oregon Climate Action Now: http://socan.info/education-resources/
  33. Climate Change Education.Org -- web portal: http://www.climatechangeeducation.org/

I wish I could return the favor here but all I have is a book I ran across on Amazon yesterday---Naomi Kline’s 2015 This Changes Everything: http://amzn.to/2o57fcY. It sounds like she’s kind of hard on both sides---Time magazine called it the “first truly honest book ever written about climate change.” Have you read this? I think I’ll give it a look.

Best,

 

Glenn

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

osi-logo-2016-25-mail

2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org

 

From: Science of Science Policy Listserv [mailto:SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV] On Behalf Of David Wojick
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 10:08 AM
To: SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV

Subject: Re: [scisip] climate change communication resources

 

Glenn,

I hope you realize that what you are here calling communication is in fact advocacy communication. (Most advocacy groups have a communications director.) In any case I am ironically in a position to help out, even though I do not share your cause.

Last May I developed a list of 33 of the largest US websites that provide education-targeted material espousing the cause of human caused dangerous global warming and/or climate change. Many are federal or federally funded, which is no surprise. The list, with links, is here:
http://ccdedu.blogspot.com/2017/05/33-alarmist-climate-change-teaching.html
You and Jim may find this useful. CLEAN is by far the largest with over 650 items.

Mind you I did this as part of the kickoff of a crowd-funding effort aimed at building a website that provides skeptical teaching materials instead. At present there is none.
See my https://www.gofundme.com/climate-change-debate-education
Donations are most welcome.

David



At 03:11 PM 2/16/2018, Glenn Hampson wrote:

Hi Jim,
 
Following up on your question from last Friday, here are a few climate change communication resources that may be helpful. This isn’t an exhaustive list by any means---maybe others can add on here:
 

  • George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication ( https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/). “Our mission is to develop and apply social science insights to help society make informed decisions that will stabilize the earth’s life-sustaining climate, and prevent further harm from climate change. To achieve this goal, our center engages in three broad activities: we conduct unbiased communication research; we help government agencies, civic organizations, professional associations, and companies apply social science research to improve their public engagement initiatives; and we train students and professionals with the knowledge and skills necessary to improve public engagement with climate change.â€
  • Yale Program on Climate Change Communication ( http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/). “We are social scientists studying the causes and consequences of public opinion and behavior. We help governments, media, companies, and advocates communicate more effectively. And we publish an online climate news service and daily national radio program, Yale Climate Connections.â€
  • Climate Communication Science & Outreach ( http://climatecommunication.org). “Climate Communication is a non-profit science and outreach project supported by a grant from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Climate Communication operates as a project of the Aspen Global Change Institute, a non-profit organization dedicated to furthering the scientific understanding of Earth systems and global environmental change.
  • National Park Service Climate Change Interpretation and Education Strategy ( https://www.nps.gov/subjects/climatechange/nccies.htm). “The 2016 National Climate Change Interpretation and Education Strategy [6.5 MB PDF] advances four broad goals and supporting actions as a systematic approach for communicating about the science and impacts of climate change across the National Park System. The strategy aims to help parks engage in place-based climate change programming that encourages park staff and visitors to discover personal relevance to climate change and share those connections broadly with others. To support these efforts, the Climate Change Communication Toolkit (3CT) has been developed as an online companion to the strategy, supporting interpretation and education personnel with resources that facilitate the inclusion of climate change topics in programming. The 3CT is organized across five broad topics that provide resources designed to help communicators make their messages both relevant and local.â€
  • Columbia University Center for Research on Environmental Decisions ( http://guide.cred.columbia.edu/). In 2009, CRED published “The Psychology of Climate Change Communication†: http://guide.cred.columbia.edu/pdfs/CREDguide_full-res.pdf. This guide “powerfully details many of the biases and barriers to scientific  communication and information processing. It offers a tool—in combination with rigorous science, innovativee engineering, and effective policy design—to help our societies takee the pivotal actions needed to respond with urgency and accuracy to  one of the greatest challenges ever faced by humanity: global-scale, human-induced  environmental threats, of which the most complex and far reaching is climate change.â€
  • NOAA’s climate.gov website (https://www.climate.gov/). “NOAA Climate.gov provides science and information for a climate-smart nation. Americans’ health, security, and economic well-being are closely linked to climate and weather. People want and need information to help them make decisions on how to manage climate-related risks and opportunities they face. NOAA Climate.gov is a source of timely and authoritative scientific data and information about climate. Our goals are to promote public understanding of climate science and climate-related events, to make our data products and services easy to access and use, to provide climate-related support to the private sector and the Nation’s economy, and to serve people making climate-related decisions with tools and resources that help them answer specific questions.â€
  • AAAS “What We Know†program (http://whatweknow.aaas.org/). “The What We Know initiative is dedicated to ensuring that three “R’s†of climate change communicated to the public. The first is Reality — about 97% of climate experts have concluded that human--caused climate change is happening. The second is Risk — that the reeality of climate change means that there are climate change impacts we can expect, but we also must consider what might happen, especially the small, but real, chance that we may face abrupt changes with massively disruptive impacts. The third R is Response — that there is much we can do and thaat the sooner we respond, the better off we will be.â€

 
I hope you are be able to find some resources on these websites that will help. I don’t have an exhaustive list of specific resources created by government agencies to empower the STEM community on this issue, as you asked, but:
 

  • Maybe others on this list have recommendations?

 
Best regards,
 
Glenn
 
 
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
osi-logo-2016-25-mail
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
 
 
From: Glenn Hampson [ mailto:gham...@nationalscience.org]
Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 4:38 PM
To: 'James Gover' <jgo...@KETTERING.EDU>; 'SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV' <SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV>
Cc: 'rsc...@googlegroups.com' <rsc...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [scisip] Canada's three chief scientist advisors
 
Hi Jim,
 

This is another great question well outside my wheelhouse---sorry. I will defer to the good folks on this list and off who have actual experience putting together the NexGen scicomm approach to climate change conversations. Y’all know who you are (I’ve spoken with one person off-list already today)---please do take the baton here. In a nutshell, this strategy goes way beyond Powerpoint shows and op ed pieces. It’s a real hearts and minds effort to speak with people where they are, and there are a number of good efforts underway. If no one chimes in by Monday or so Jim, I’ll try to do my best to pull together an answer for you (but again, I’m not the expert here).


 
Sincerely,
 
Glenn
 
 
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
osi-logo-2016-25-mail
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
 
 
 
From: Science of Science Policy Listserv [ mailto:SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV] On Behalf Of James Gover
Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 4:15 PM
To: SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV
Subject: Re: [scisip] Canada's three chief scientist advisors
 
Thank you for your reply.
 
On your first point, what might change global warming communications for the better and what can I do?  So far, I believe that a power point file supported by a lengthy written tutorial lecture would be an excellent way to start.  I have seen these used in IEEE conferences to help researchers and managers gain a better understanding of the "big picture".  NSF should have the knowledge to prepare these; I and other techies can link these to the public through a variety of mechanisms including writing op eds for our local papers.  Agencies need to pay more attention to how they can empower the STEM community.  You must have other ideas that you can share?
 
On your second point, I thought you were talking about journals with strong reputations, e.g., IEEE Transactions.
 
On your third point, I was talking about policy-making including science policy.
jim
 
On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 3:21 PM, Glenn Hampson < gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:

Hi Jim,

 

Thanks for your email. Here are my replies:

 

IN MY EYES, YOUR FIELD, IN-PARTICULAR,  AND FEDERAL AGENCIES CONDUCTING CLIMATE SCIENCE RESEARCH, IN GENERAL, HAVE DROPPED THE BALL ON THE CLIMATE CHANGE COMMUNICATIONS ISSUE.

·        You’re absolutely right. In fact, there are some communications researchers who have noted that the way the science communicators and the science community have pushed back on science deniers has been exactly wrong. In particular, the snarky, we’re-smarter-than-you approach has only made deniers become more entrenched. We need a new playbook for communicating science that doesn’t involve dismissing non-scientists and non-scientific concerns.

·  MISTAKES ARE SOMETIMES MADE, BUT FRAUDULENT WORK RARELY PASSES JOURNAL PEER AND EDITOR REVIEW.  I CANNOT IMAGINE THIS TO BE A REAL PROBLEM.

·        To the contrary Jim, this is actually a growing problem and a real threat to science. The Internet Age, coupled with open access reform, increasing research, and increasing specialization, have together brought about an explosion in scholarly publishing. A great deal of this new publishing doesn’t follow the norms and traditions science depends upon. Cursory editorial review is often substituted for actual peer review, the credentials of these reviewers is often faked, and pay-to-play journals will publish anything for a fee. The US Federal Trade Commission recently took action to shut down the activities of OMICS, one of the most egregious scammers in the scholarly publishing environment.

·  POLICY-MAKING IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY REQUIRES ALL OPINIONS TO BE WEIGHED.

·        Naturally. But science itself is not a democracy. It’s a meritocracy. You’re referring to policy-making. I’m referring to the deliberative process inside science.

 

With best regards,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson

Executive Director

Science Communication Institute (SCI)

Program Director

Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

osi-logo-2016-25-mail

2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133

(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org

########################################################################

To send to the list, address your message to: SCI...@listserv.nsf.gov

To subscribe to the list: send the text “subscribe SCISIP†to list...@listserv.nsf.gov

To unsubscribe: sent the text “unsubscribe SCISIP†to list...@listserv.nsf.gov

########################################################################

To send to the list, address your message to: SCI...@listserv.nsf.gov

To subscribe to the list: send the text “subscribe SCISIP” to list...@listserv.nsf.gov

To unsubscribe: sent the text “unsubscribe SCISIP” to list...@listserv.nsf.gov

image001.jpg

Glenn Hampson

unread,
Feb 17, 2018, 2:44:21 PM2/17/18
to SCI...@listserv.nsf.gov, rsc...@googlegroups.com

Okay---good to know (I haven’t read it). In that case I got nuthin’---sorry. I do want to learn more about the “resistance” philosophy though---if not from this book then someplace. Is it all premised on (1) the science is wrong, and therefore (2) the policy solutions are wrong? Or is there something more fundamental and/or nuanced here? Can you help us out? Maybe in your own words?

 

Best,

 

Glenn

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

osi-logo-2016-25-mail

2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org

 

 

 

From: Science of Science Policy Listserv [mailto:SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV] On Behalf Of David Wojick
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 11:20 AM
To: SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV

Subject: Re: [scisip] climate change communication resources

 

Kline's book is about as extreme as climate alarmism gets, so no wonder Time likes it. Let's restructure the global economy, and the political system, all in the name of stopping climate change. And you folks wonder why there is resistance. This is actually very funny.

David

At 02:00 PM 2/17/2018, Glenn Hampson wrote:

This is a really great list. Thanks David! I’m pasting it below:

    1. Climate Literacy and Energy Awareness Network (CLEAN): http://cleanet.org/
    1. US Global Change Research Program "Resources for Educators†: http://www.globalchange.gov/browse/educators
    2. NOAA's "Teaching Climate†: https://www.climate.gov/teaching
    1. "Going Green! - Middle Schoolers Out to Save the World" is funded by NSF: https://msosw.wikispaces.com/
    2. NASA's "Global Climate Change - Vital Signs of the Planet": https://climate.nasa.gov/resources/education/
    1. The National Ocean Service's "Talking to Children about Climate Change†: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/climate-stewards/talking-about.html
    1. "Teaching about Climate Change" from Carlton College, sponsored by NSF: http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/climatechange/index.html
    1. "Climate Change Live" with many federal "partners†: https://climatechangelive.org/index.php
    2. NASA's "Climate Kids†: https://climatekids.nasa.gov/menu/teach/
    1. "Climate Change Activities" from UCAR, sponsored by NSF: https://scied.ucar.edu/climate-change-activities
    2. "Climate and Global Change" by the National Earth Science Teachers Association, sponsored by NASA and NOAA: http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/climate.html
    3. "Climate Change Education" by Stanford's School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences, funded by NASA: https://pangea.stanford.edu/programs/outreach/climatechange/
    4. "Climate Change" from AAAS, sponsored by NSF: http://sciencenetlinks.com/collections/climate-change/
    1. "TEACHER RESOURCES" from the Alliance for Climate Education, includes OSTP, NOAA and EPA as "Partners†: https://acespace.org/teachers/resources
    1. "Climate Change and Human Health Lesson Plans" by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIH: https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/scied/teachers/cchh/
    2. "Climate Change 101" (video) with Bill Nye | National Geographic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtW2rrLHs08
    3. "There is no Planet B" by Teach Climate Change: http://teachclimatechange.org/
    4. "Classroom Resources" from the National Center for Science Education: https://ncse.com/classroom-resources
    5. "Climate Science Resources" from the National Science Teachers Association: http://www.nsta.org/climate/
    6. "Climate Change" from Practical Action: https://practicalaction.org/climate-change-resources
    7. "Climate Change Resources" from the National Wildlife Federation: https://www.nwf.org/Eco-Schools-USA/Become-an-Eco-School/Pathways/Climate-Change/Resources.aspx
    8. "Cornell Climate Change" from Cornell (sponsors unknown): http://climatechange.cornell.edu/tools-resources/youth-education/
    9. "Teaching About Climate Change With The New York Times" by The Learning Network: https://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/02/teaching-about-climate-change-with-the-new-york-times/comment-page-1/?_r=0
    10. "Climate Change - Student Resources" from Lehigh University's Environmental Initiative: http://www.ei.lehigh.edu/learners/cc/
    11. "Climate Change Education: Essential Information for Educators" from the National Education Association: http://www.nea.org/home/65564.htm
    12. "Climate Change" from the University of California, Berkeley's Global Systems Science: http://www.globalsystemsscience.org/studentbooks/cc
    13. "Climate Change" by KQED Science: https://ww2.kqed.org/quest/tag/climate-change/
    14. "Activities for Responding to global climate change" by the Nuffield Foundation: http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/science-society/activities-responding-global-climate-change
    15. "Climate Change" from BP Educational Service (an oil company!): http://bpes.bp.com/collection/climate-change
    16. "Climate Change Lesson Plans: Exploring the Evidence" by Michigan State's W. K. Kellogg Biological Station: https://www.kbs.msu.edu/2017/02/climate-plans-k-12/
    17. "Educators' Resource Corner: Climate Change" from the Wisconsin Center for Environmental Education: http://eeinwisconsin.org/resource/about.aspx?s=93380.0.0.2209
    18. "Education Resources" from Southern Oregon Climate Action Now: http://socan.info/education-resources/
    19. Climate Change Education.Org -- web portal: http://www.climatechangeeducation.org/

      I wish I could return the favor here but all I have is a book I ran across on Amazon yesterday---Naomi Kline’s 2015 This Changes Everything: http://amzn.to/2o57fcY. It sounds like she’s kind of hard on both sides---Time magazine called it the “first truly honest book ever written about climate change.†Have you read this? I think I’ll give it a look.
      Best,
       


      Glenn
       
      Glenn Hampson
      Executive Director
      Science Communication Institute (SCI)
      Program Director
      Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
      osi-logo-2016-25-mail
      2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
      (206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
       

      From: Science of Science Policy Listserv [ mailto:SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV] On Behalf Of David Wojick
      Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 10:08 AM

      To: SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV
      Subject: Re: [scisip] climate change communication resources
       
      Glenn,

      I hope you realize that what you are here calling communication is in fact advocacy communication. (Most advocacy groups have a communications director.) In any case I am ironically in a position to help out, even though I do not share your cause.

      Last May I developed a list of 33 of the largest US websites that provide education-targeted material espousing the cause of human caused dangerous global warming and/or climate change. Many are federal or federally funded, which is no surprise. The list, with links, is here:
      http://ccdedu.blogspot.com/2017/05/33-alarmist-climate-change-teaching.html
      You and Jim may find this useful. CLEAN is by far the largest with over 650 items.

      Mind you I did this as part of the kickoff of a crowd-funding effort aimed at building a website that provides skeptical teaching materials instead. At present there is none.
      See my https://www.gofundme.com/climate-change-debate-education
      Donations are most welcome.

      David

      At 03:11 PM 2/16/2018, Glenn Hampson wrote:

      Hi Jim,

       

      Following up on your question from last Friday, here are a few climate change communication resources that may be helpful. This isn’t an exhaustive list by any means---maybe others can add on here:

       

      George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication ( https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/). “Our mission is to develop and apply social science insights to help society make informed decisions that will stabilize the earth’s life-sustaining climate, and prevent further harm from climate change. To achieve this goal, our center engages in three broad activities: we conduct unbiased communication research; we help government agencies, civic organizations, professional associations, and companies apply social science research to improve their public engagement initiatives; and we train students and professionals with the knowledge and skills necessary to improve public engagement with climate change.â€Â

      Yale Program on Climate Change Communication ( http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/). “We are social scientists studying the causes and consequences of public opinion and behavior. We help governments, media, companies, and advocates communicate more effectively. And we publish an online climate news service and daily national radio program, Yale Climate Connections.â€Â

      Climate Communication Science & Outreach ( http://climatecommunication.org). “Climate Communication is a non-profit science and outreach project supported by a grant from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Climate Communication operates as a project of the Aspen Global Change Institute, a non-profit organization dedicated to furthering the scientific understanding of Earth systems and global environmental change.

      National Park Service Climate Change Interpretation and Education Strategy ( https://www.nps.gov/subjects/climatechange/nccies.htm). “The 2016 National Climate Change Interpretation and Education Strategy [6.5 MB PDF] advances four broad goals and supporting actions as a systematic approach for communicating about the science and impacts of climate change across the National Park System. The strategy aims to help parks engage in place-based climate change programming that encourages park staff and visitors to discover personal relevance to climate change and share those connections broadly with others. To support these efforts, the Climate Change Communication Toolkit (3CT) has been developed as an online companion to the strategy, supporting interpretation and education personnel with resources that facilitate the inclusion of climate change topics in programming. The 3CT is organized across five broad topics that provide resources designed to help communicators make their messages both relevant and local.â€Â

      Columbia University Center for Research on Environmental Decisions ( http://guide.cred.columbia.edu/). In 2009, CRED published “The Psychology of Climate Change Communication†: http://guide.cred.columbia.edu/pdfs/CREDguide_full-res.pdf. This guide “powerfully details many of the biases and barriers to scientific  communication and information processing. It offers a tool—in combination with rigorous science, innovativee engineering, and effective policy design—to help our societies takee the pivotal actions needed to respond with urgency and accuracy to  one of the greatest challenges ever faced by humanity: global-scale, human-induced  environmental threats, of which the most complex and far reaching is climate change.â€Â

      NOAA’s climate.gov website (https://www.climate.gov/). “NOAA Climate.gov provides science and information for a climate-smart nation. Americans’ health, security, and economic well-being are closely linked to climate and weather. People want and need information to help them make decisions on how to manage climate-related risks and opportunities they face. NOAA Climate.gov is a source of timely and authoritative scientific data and information about climate. Our goals are to promote public understanding of climate science and climate-related events, to make our data products and services easy to access and use, to provide climate-related support to the private sector and the Nation’s economy, and to serve people making climate-related decisions with tools and resources that help them answer specific questions.â€Â

      AAAS “What We Know†program (http://whatweknow.aaas.org/). “The What We Know initiative is dedicated to ensuring that three “R’s†of climate change communicated to the public. The first is Reality — about 97% of climate experts have concluded that human--caused climate change is happening. The second is Risk — that the reeality of climate change means that there are climate change impacts we can expect, but we also must consider what might happen, especially the small, but real, chance that we may face abrupt changes with massively disruptive impacts. The third R is Response — that there is much we can do and thaat the sooner we respond, the better off we will be.â€Â

       

      I hope you are be able to find some resources on these websites that will help. I don’t have an exhaustive list of specific resources created by government agencies to empower the STEM community on this issue, as you asked, but:

       

      the climate.gov site referenced above has a great “resources†page ( https://www.climate.gov/teaching), including visuals and videos, and

      Pinterest has a great collection of climate change PowerPoint decks that are free to use ( https://www.pinterest.com/explore/climate-change-ppt/)

      Maybe others on this list have recommendations?

       

      Best regards,

       

      Glenn

       

       

      Glenn Hampson

      Executive Director

      Science Communication Institute (SCI)

      Program Director

      Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

      osi-logo-2016-25-mail

      2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133

      (206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org

       

       

      From: Glenn Hampson [ mailto:gham...@nationalscience.org]

      Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 4:38 PM

      To: 'James Gover' <jgo...@KETTERING.EDU>; 'SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV' <SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV >

      Cc: 'rsc...@googlegroups.com' <rsc...@googlegroups.com >

      Subject: RE: [scisip] Canada's three chief scientist advisors

       

      Hi Jim,

       

      This is another great question well outside my wheelhouse---sorry. I will defer to the good folks on this list and off who have actual experience putting together the NexGen scicomm approach to climate change conversations. Y’all know who you are (I’ve spoken with one person off-list already today)---please do take the baton here. In a nutshell, this strategy goes way beyond Powerpoint shows and op ed pieces. It’s a real hearts and minds effort to speak with people where they are, and there are a number of good efforts underway. If no one chimes in by Monday or so Jim, I’ll try to do my best to pull together an answer for you (but again, I’m not the expert here).

       

      Sincerely,

       

      Glenn

       

       

      Glenn Hampson

      Executive Director

      Science Communication Institute (SCI)

      Program Director

      Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

      osi-logo-2016-25-mail

      2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133

      (206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org

       

       

       

      From: Science of Science Policy Listserv [ mailto:SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV] On Behalf Of James Gover

      Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 4:15 PM

      To: SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV

      Subject: Re: [scisip] Canada's three chief scientist advisors

       

      Thank you for your reply.

       

      On your first point, what might change global warming communications for the better and what can I do?  So far, I believe that a power point file supported by a lengthy written tutorial lecture would be an excellent way to start.  I have seen these used in IEEE conferences to help researchers and managers gain a better understanding of the "big picture".  NSF should have the knowledge to prepare these; I and other techies can link these to the public through a variety of mechanisms including writing op eds for our local papers.  Agencies need to pay more attention to how they can empower the STEM community.  You must have other ideas that you can share?

       

      On your second point, I thought you were talking about journals with strong reputations, e.g., IEEE Transactions.

       

      On your third point, I was talking about policy-making including science policy.

      jim

       

      On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 3:21 PM, Glenn Hampson < gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:

      Hi Jim,

       

      Thanks for your email. Here are my replies:

       

      IN MY EYES, YOUR FIELD, IN-PARTICULAR,  AND FEDERAL AGENCIES CONDUCTING CLIMATE SCIENCE RESEARCH, IN GENERAL, HAVE DROPPED THE BALL ON THE CLIMATE CHANGE COMMUNICATIONS ISSUE.

      ·        You’re absolutely right. In fact, there are some communications researchers who have noted that the way the science communicators and the science community have pushed back on science deniers has been exactly wrong. In particular, the snarky, we’re-smarter-than-you approach has only made deniers become more entrenched. We need a new playbook for communicating science that doesn’t involve dismissing non-scientists and non-scientific concerns.

      ·  MISTAKES ARE SOMETIMES MADE, BUT FRAUDULENT WORK RARELY PASSES JOURNAL PEER AND EDITOR REVIEW.  I CANNOT IMAGINE THIS TO BE A REAL PROBLEM.

      ·        To the contrary Jim, this is actually a growing problem and a real threat to science. The Internet Age, coupled with open access reform, increasing research, and increasing specialization, have together brought about an explosion in scholarly publishing. A great deal of this new publishing doesn’t follow the norms and traditions science depends upon. Cursory editorial review is often substituted for actual peer review, the credentials of these reviewers is often faked, and pay-to-play journals will publish anything for a fee. The US Federal Trade Commission recently took action to shut down the activities of OMICS, one of the most egregious scammers in the scholarly publishing environment.

      ·  POLICY-MAKING IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY REQUIRES ALL OPINIONS TO BE WEIGHED.

      ·        Naturally. But science itself is not a democracy. It’s a meritocracy. You’re referring to policy-making. I’m referring to the deliberative process inside science.

       

      With best regards,

       

      Glenn

       

       

      Glenn Hampson

      Executive Director

      Science Communication Institute (SCI)

      Program Director

      Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

      osi-logo-2016-25-mail

      2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133

      (206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org

      ########################################################################

      To send to the list, address your message to: SCI...@listserv.nsf.gov

      To subscribe to the list: send the text “subscribe SCISIP†to list...@listserv.nsf.gov

      To unsubscribe: sent the text “unsubscribe SCISIP†to list...@listserv.nsf.gov

      ########################################################################

      To send to the list, address your message to: SCI...@listserv.nsf.gov

      To subscribe to the list: send the text “subscribe SCISIP†to list...@listserv.nsf.gov

      To unsubscribe: sent the text “unsubscribe SCISIP†to list...@listserv.nsf.gov
      ########################################################################

      To send to the list, address your message to: SCI...@listserv.nsf.gov

      To subscribe to the list: send the text “subscribe SCISIP†to list...@listserv.nsf.gov

      To unsubscribe: sent the text “unsubscribe SCISIP†to list...@listserv.nsf.gov

      image001.jpg

      Glenn Hampson

      unread,
      Feb 19, 2018, 7:34:44 PM2/19/18
      to Klein, Peter, rsc...@googlegroups.com, Russell Thomas, Christopher Hill, msha...@iit.edu, Fiore, Steve

      Hi Peter,

       

      About a third of the good folks on the RSComm list pull double-duty debating scholarly communications issues on the OSI list---they’re familiar with these long conversations! (maybe tired of them too, though 😊).

       

      I understand and for the most part agree with you when it comes to social science research. Indeed, there are a good many people on these lists who would posit that “social science” is the oxymoron---it’s almost impossible to disentangle confirmation bias from this kind of research, despite our best effort to be “scientific.”

       

      But I disagree with you that this is even a remote issue in most of the physical sciences (including climate research). This isn’t to suggest at all that the physical sciences are “settled”: different experiments can yield different outcomes, different explanations will be put forward and tested to explain these outcomes, and so on. Importantly, though, these studies are meticulously designed to filter out influences---environmental, mechanical, observational, statistical, etc. The only bias in a physicist’s attempt to precisely measure the speed of light comes from equipment and study design flaws. If there are no flaws and the value measured is unexpected, and this result is replicable and can’t be explained away, she will use science to arrive at an explanation for why, not twist her numbers into an expected value through confirmation bias.

       

      After a time, the weight of evidence created in science does indeed create “fact” for all intents and purposes. Yes---in principle this evidence is always subject to challenge, but there is nothing “more or less” or “tentative” about this. This is knowledge---not iffy or squishy or suspect, but fact: gravity, evolution, the speed of light in a vacuum---hard, measurable, explainable, physical attributes of the world in which we live.

       

      I’m not saying that uncertainly doesn’t exist in some settings, or that results can’t be influenced by funder expectations, that researchers don’t p-hack to make their results more publishable, and so on. And I realize that in your line of work, you’ve no doubt seen many instances of influence that have shaped your views of science and science policy. But to me anyway, the question with regard to climate change research---the one I’m trying to understand here (and sorry for my density)---is whether the good folks on this list who are skeptical of climate science are skeptical because they think the body of evidence from this research is fatally flawed. Is this the case? And if so, I think it would help the “other side” in this conversation to understand exactly where they think this research went off the rails---not in general terms that science can be influenced so therefore science can’t be trusted, but specifically, which studies do they think are wrong and why? Or is something else at work here?

       

      Thanks for continuing this thread---hopefully it’s worth the effort.

       

      Best,

       

      Glenn

       

      Glenn Hampson
      Executive Director
      Science Communication Institute (SCI)
      Program Director
      Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

      osi-logo-2016-25-mail

      2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
      (206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org

       

       

      From: Klein, Peter [mailto:Peter...@baylor.edu]
      Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 5:07 PM
      To: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
      Cc: rsc...@googlegroups.com
      Subject: RE: [scisip] climate change communication resources

       

      Glenn, I’m going to take this off SCISIP because people there appear to be tired of the topic.

       

      You write: “most ‘good’ science is not at all affected by ‘institutions and incentives’ (at least, not in a way that transforms truth into fiction.”

       

      My position, which I think is the mainstream one among specialists in the history, sociology, economics, and philosophy of science and technology is that this statement is completely false or, at best, a set of category mistakes. First, scientific claims cannot be separated into “good” and “bad” or “truth” and “fiction” categories. Scientific propositions are, if we want to use Popper’s terminology, conjectures. They can be logically consistent or not, more or less supported by empirical evidence, but always tentative and subject to challenge. (That’s why I hate the oxymoronic term “settled science.”)

       

      Second, scientific research does not take place in a vacuum but is conducted by human beings using scarce resources. Of course scientists respond to incentives, extrinsic as well as intrinsic. To take funding as the most obvious example: the choices of topics and methods, the way problems are framed, the kinds of evidence that are considered acceptable, what constitutes a publishable result, and so on are all matters of social convention, in which funders play a huge role. Research that is consistent with the funder’s objectives, that delivers results the funder will accept, that increases the likelihood of future funding, is more likely to be undertaken, and the results more likely to be reported, than otherwise – whether the funder is NSF, NASA, the Gates Foundation, or Exxon-Mobil. Confirmation bias plays a huge role here.

       

      You refer below to “political agendas,” but this is not the right concept. I don’t think NOAA has any particular partisan agenda but NASA personnel certainly have an interest in NOAA budget and are not likely to support research suggesting that NOAA and its work are unimportant. I personally am a social scientist who studies the links between institutions, policy, and innovation. Would I pursue a research agenda suggesting that institutions and policy don’t really matter for innovation, that innovation doesn’t affect economic growth, and hence fewer resources should be devoted to studying these topics? Maybe, but it’s not very likely.

       

      Peter Klein

       

      From: Glenn Hampson [mailto:gham...@nationalscience.org]
      Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 4:00 PM
      To: Klein, Peter <Peter...@baylor.edu>; SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV
      Cc: rsc...@googlegroups.com
      Subject: RE: [scisip] climate change communication resources

       

      Hi Peter,

       

      You seem to be suggesting here that climate science involves a lot of subjectivity---enough to make it far less objective than desirable for policy purposes. Is this what you and David are driving at? Of course, the very ethos of science is that it strives to be objective, and most “good” science is not at all affected by “institutions and incentives” (at least, not in a way that transforms truth into fiction). So, I’m not sure what kind of science you’re questioning (toned down from “impugning”), unless you’re talking about fatally flawed combinations---smoking research funded by tobacco companies, for instance. Are you saying that climate research is flawed because the funders (mostly governments) have a political agenda and research that runs counter to this agenda doesn’t get funded or publicized (not to put words in your mouth---just searching)?

       

      I do think this is a critically important topic for this list, but alas, someone has emailed me and said there are folks who want their list to return to “normal.” Since there’s no moderator here, I don’t know the wishes of the group. I’m happy to invite everyone over to the rscomm list to finish this conversation. Alternatively, would it be okay to wrap this up here by Monday? Would this be an acceptable approach? People who need to tune out can have their list back in two days---people who want to weigh in can speak now or forever hold their peace? I’ll stop replying to messages (unless asked) between now and Monday---others can weigh in.

       

      Sincerely,

       

      Glenn

       

       

      Glenn Hampson
      Executive Director
      Science Communication Institute (SCI)
      Program Director
      Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

      osi-logo-2016-25-mail

      2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
      (206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org

       

       

       

      From: Science of Science Policy Listserv [mailto:SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV] On Behalf Of Klein, Peter
      Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 1:22 PM
      To: SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV
      Subject: Re: [scisip] climate change communication resources

       

      Glenn, I’m surprised by your response. The idea that knowledge production is shaped by institutions and incentives would be included in the first week of any freshman-level course on the history of science. Recognizing that science is a human endeavor hardly “impugns” anyone or anything, nor does it “throw knowledge under the bus.” On the contrary, recognizing how science works is critical for improving the scientific endeavor. The fact that, particularly among climate scientists, such a mundane statement would be considered controversial helps illustrate the challenges in science communication that are the main topic of this list.

       

      Peter

       

      From: Glenn Hampson [mailto:gham...@nationalscience.org]
      Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 3:08 PM
      To: Klein, Peter <Peter...@baylor.edu>; SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV
      Subject: RE: [scisip] climate change communication resources

       

      Hi Peter,

       

      What you’re impugning here isn’t climate research specifically, but ALL research. Are we prepared to throw all knowledge under the bus? I think we all acknowledge there’s room for improvement in how scientists compete for grants, publish their findings, communicate with the public, and so much more. But broadly concluding that bias exists and therefore truth does not is, to me anyway, a bridge too far.

       

      Best,

       

      Glenn

       

       

      Glenn Hampson
      Executive Director
      Science Communication Institute (SCI)
      Program Director
      Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

      osi-logo-2016-25-mail

      2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
      (206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org

       

       

       

      From: Science of Science Policy Listserv [mailto:SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV] On Behalf Of Klein, Peter


      Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 12:46 PM
      To: SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV

      Subject: Re: [scisip] climate change communication resources

       

      Thanks to all the participants for a very interesting discussion.  

       

      For me the basic issue is sponsorship bias, not political bias. Someone earlier expressed astonishment at the claim that natural scientists (unlike social scientists) could suffer from systematic bias. I think the claim relates not to partisan political preferences, but to the kinds of cognitive and behavioral biases and heuristics common to all human activities. We are all familiar with the concerns associated with scientific research funded by industry, Congressional earmarks, or other obviously interested parties. What about government, foundation, and similar sources? Scientists, like all people, care about career advancement, reputation among peers, academic rank and tenure, and of course salary and research budgets. With billions of public and private dollars at stake, it is reasonable to point out that individuals and organizations working on climate science have strong financial and career incentives to a) promote climate change as a serious global problem, b) advocate for increased public funding to study climate change, and c) dismiss skeptics as being uninformed or self-interested.

       

      Of course, this does not imply malfeasance or professional misconduct or even any awareness of these incentives, subtle or not. We all suffer from confirmation bias and tend to highlight information and arguments consistent with our view of our work, the world, and ourselves. What troubles me is the idea that institutions, incentives, and interests are relevant only to certain participants in these discussions, while others are wholly disinterested pursuers of truth. That flies in the face of everything we know about the history, sociology, and philosophy of science.

       

      Peter Klein

       

       

       

       

      From: Science of Science Policy Listserv [mailto:SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV] On Behalf Of N. Peter Whitehead


      Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 1:52 PM
      To: SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV

      Subject: Re: [scisip] climate change communication resources

       

      It’s much more nuanced. George Mason is an excellent example. It was a public university in the Washington suburbs with flat enrollment and declining research that the Koch brothers in several guises started sustaining. They created the Schar public policy institute and the Antonin Scalia School of Law, aka: ASSOL (say it out loud) - among other huge investments at GMU. Around this same time, manuscripts questioning climate change started coming from GMU staff. Perhaps a coincidence. 

       

      On Feb 17, 2018, at 2:44 PM, Glenn Hampson <gham...@NATIONALSCIENCE.ORG> wrote:

       

      Okay---good to know (I haven’t read it). In that case I got nuthin’---sorry. I do want to learn more about the “resistance” philosophy though---if not from this book then someplace. Is it all premised on (1) the science is wrong, and therefore (2) the policy solutions are wrong? Or is there something more fundamental and/or nuanced here? Can you help us out? Maybe in your own words?

       

      Best,

       

      Glenn

       

      Glenn Hampson
      Executive Director
      Science Communication Institute (SCI)
      Program Director
      Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

      <image001.jpg>

      <image001.jpg>

       

      N. Peter Whitehead, PhD, (ME)2

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

      image001.jpg

      Glenn Hampson

      unread,
      Feb 19, 2018, 7:34:45 PM2/19/18
      to Klein, Peter, SCI...@listserv.nsf.gov, rsc...@googlegroups.com

      Hi Peter,

       

      You seem to be suggesting here that climate science involves a lot of subjectivity---enough to make it far less objective than desirable for policy purposes. Is this what you and David are driving at? Of course, the very ethos of science is that it strives to be objective, and most “good” science is not at all affected by “institutions and incentives” (at least, not in a way that transforms truth into fiction). So, I’m not sure what kind of science you’re questioning (toned down from “impugning”), unless you’re talking about fatally flawed combinations---smoking research funded by tobacco companies, for instance. Are you saying that climate research is flawed because the funders (mostly governments) have a political agenda and research that runs counter to this agenda doesn’t get funded or publicized (not to put words in your mouth---just searching)?

       

      I do think this is a critically important topic for this list, but alas, someone has emailed me and said there are folks who want their list to return to “normal.” Since there’s no moderator here, I don’t know the wishes of the group. I’m happy to invite everyone over to the rscomm list to finish this conversation. Alternatively, would it be okay to wrap this up here by Monday? Would this be an acceptable approach? People who need to tune out can have their list back in two days---people who want to weigh in can speak now or forever hold their peace? I’ll stop replying to messages (unless asked) between now and Monday---others can weigh in.

       

      Sincerely,

       

      Glenn

       

       

      Glenn Hampson
      Executive Director
      Science Communication Institute (SCI)
      Program Director
      Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

      osi-logo-2016-25-mail

      2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
      (206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org

       

       

       

      From: Science of Science Policy Listserv [mailto:SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV] On Behalf Of Klein, Peter
      Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 1:22 PM
      To: SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV
      Subject: Re: [scisip] climate change communication resources

       

      Glenn, I’m surprised by your response. The idea that knowledge production is shaped by institutions and incentives would be included in the first week of any freshman-level course on the history of science. Recognizing that science is a human endeavor hardly “impugns” anyone or anything, nor does it “throw knowledge under the bus.” On the contrary, recognizing how science works is critical for improving the scientific endeavor. The fact that, particularly among climate scientists, such a mundane statement would be considered controversial helps illustrate the challenges in science communication that are the main topic of this list.

       

      Peter

       

      From: Glenn Hampson [mailto:gham...@nationalscience.org]
      Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 3:08 PM
      To: Klein, Peter <Peter...@baylor.edu>; SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV
      Subject: RE: [scisip] climate change communication resources

       

      Hi Peter,

       

      What you’re impugning here isn’t climate research specifically, but ALL research. Are we prepared to throw all knowledge under the bus? I think we all acknowledge there’s room for improvement in how scientists compete for grants, publish their findings, communicate with the public, and so much more. But broadly concluding that bias exists and therefore truth does not is, to me anyway, a bridge too far.

       

      Best,

       

      Glenn

       

       

      Glenn Hampson
      Executive Director
      Science Communication Institute (SCI)
      Program Director
      Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

      osi-logo-2016-25-mail

      2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
      (206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org

       

       

       

      From: Science of Science Policy Listserv [mailto:SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV] On Behalf Of Klein, Peter


      Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 12:46 PM
      To: SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV

      Subject: Re: [scisip] climate change communication resources

       

      Thanks to all the participants for a very interesting discussion.  

       

      For me the basic issue is sponsorship bias, not political bias. Someone earlier expressed astonishment at the claim that natural scientists (unlike social scientists) could suffer from systematic bias. I think the claim relates not to partisan political preferences, but to the kinds of cognitive and behavioral biases and heuristics common to all human activities. We are all familiar with the concerns associated with scientific research funded by industry, Congressional earmarks, or other obviously interested parties. What about government, foundation, and similar sources? Scientists, like all people, care about career advancement, reputation among peers, academic rank and tenure, and of course salary and research budgets. With billions of public and private dollars at stake, it is reasonable to point out that individuals and organizations working on climate science have strong financial and career incentives to a) promote climate change as a serious global problem, b) advocate for increased public funding to study climate change, and c) dismiss skeptics as being uninformed or self-interested.

       

      Of course, this does not imply malfeasance or professional misconduct or even any awareness of these incentives, subtle or not. We all suffer from confirmation bias and tend to highlight information and arguments consistent with our view of our work, the world, and ourselves. What troubles me is the idea that institutions, incentives, and interests are relevant only to certain participants in these discussions, while others are wholly disinterested pursuers of truth. That flies in the face of everything we know about the history, sociology, and philosophy of science.

       

      Peter Klein

       

       

       

       

      From: Science of Science Policy Listserv [mailto:SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV] On Behalf Of N. Peter Whitehead


      Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 1:52 PM
      To: SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV

      Subject: Re: [scisip] climate change communication resources

       

      It’s much more nuanced. George Mason is an excellent example. It was a public university in the Washington suburbs with flat enrollment and declining research that the Koch brothers in several guises started sustaining. They created the Schar public policy institute and the Antonin Scalia School of Law, aka: ASSOL (say it out loud) - among other huge investments at GMU. Around this same time, manuscripts questioning climate change started coming from GMU staff. Perhaps a coincidence. 

       

      On Feb 17, 2018, at 2:44 PM, Glenn Hampson <gham...@NATIONALSCIENCE.ORG> wrote:

       

      Okay---good to know (I haven’t read it). In that case I got nuthin’---sorry. I do want to learn more about the “resistance” philosophy though---if not from this book then someplace. Is it all premised on (1) the science is wrong, and therefore (2) the policy solutions are wrong? Or is there something more fundamental and/or nuanced here? Can you help us out? Maybe in your own words?

       

      Best,

       

      Glenn

       

      Glenn Hampson
      Executive Director
      Science Communication Institute (SCI)
      Program Director
      Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

      <image001.jpg>

      <image001.jpg>

       

      N. Peter Whitehead, PhD, (ME)2

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

      ########################################################################

      image001.jpg
      Reply all
      Reply to author
      Forward
      0 new messages