Stata Center at MIT

I know many of you who attended the Manomet-MIT event had some interesting observations and found the conversation stimulating.  A number of people commented that the conversation needs to continue.  So this seems like one way to do so—“John’s Manomet Blog.”  I invite you to submit your comments if you wish, and check back to see what others have to say.

First, it was a real pleasure to be part of such an important discussion that only a month ago was just a concept.  I was on the bus heading back to Maine reading Randy Olson’s book “Don’t be Such a Scientist.”  I emailed him right from the bus to see if I could get him to come to Boston to speak (he’s a Ph.D. marine biologist turned Hollywood filmmaker, for those who don’t know).  Randy and I then conspired to involve MIT thought leaders like John Sterman from the Sloan School, and Kurt Sternlof from the Earth System Initiative.  Soon we had others on board like Beth Daley from the Boston Globe and Gino Del Guercio (freelance filmamker for PBS and Discovery Channel).  Next thing you know we’re sitting in the Stata Center on April 22.

The panelists were provocative, thoughtful, and entertaining.  But for me, I left with basically the same message I went in with, which is if you want more people to pay attention to climate change (or whatever) you will have to be able to explain it in terms of things THEY care about (not you).  To find out what they care about, you have to listen to them.  Talking louder won’t work.  Talking more passionately won’t work.  Spraying them with a “fire-hose” of climate data won’t make any difference.  Changing someone’s mind, once they’ve made it up, is almost impossible.  The only way you might succeed is to find a way to “connect” to something they care about.  That was the central point of Dan Kahan’s paper in the journal Nature in January—first understand the values of your audience.  Only then speak.

Given that sociologists warn us that it is hard to change either a “skeptic’s” mind or a “believer’s” mind on climate change, it seems a communication focus on the “independents” would be most fruitful —in this case, those who are undecided or yet non-committal about climate change.  As in elections, it’s the “independents” where the opportunity lies for increasing support for action (for either side).  Explain how climate change can impact what matters to the independents, and the force for action will grow.  It’s a marketing problem not a science problem.  As Kahan says in his Nature paper, it would not be an oversimplification to say “science needs a marketing department.”

Back to MIT… As I sat there listening to the fascinating but ultimately academic discussion about what should be done, I was thinking “thank goodness for a place like Manomet.”  While some search for a silver-bullet solution to public opinion on climate change, we’ll be a long way down the road toward making a measurable difference.  Manomet works in a world where diverse people can be compelled to act even without perfect information.  These people are foresters, farmers, fishermen, mayors of towns in Argentina, and corporations as well—people who have to make “it work” day in and day out.  Agreed, the “swift boaters” of climate science don’t deserve much respect.  But the vast majority of the public does deserve respect, and we’ll get a lot farther a lot faster if we can work with people with varied viewpoints.

At Manomet we’re not obsessed with who’s right and who’s wrong.  Most things aren’t that clear cut anyway.  We should correct factual errors, but there’s still going to be a level of uncertainty about climate change that is unavoidable, and we’ll do better by acknowledging it rather than painting a doomsday picture when there is a margin of error in the predictions.  We’ve weighed the evidence, and we are compelled to use our skills as scientists to hedge against what basic physics seems to be saying.

It might just be simpler than we’re making it out to be.  Build trust with those who can make a difference.  Then go to work.

How did the Manomet-MIT panel discussion shape your views?  What conclusions did you draw?  Contrary views from mine are most welcome too.