Being as disciplined in our engagement with society as we are in our scientific research Dr. Keith L. Seitter Executive Director American Meteorological Society EMS 2017 kseitter@ametsoc.org

AMS President Matt Parker passed away in March 2017. The 2018 AMS Annual Meeting (7-11 January 2018) is organized around the theme developed by Parker: "Transforming Communication in the Weather, Water, and Climate Enterprise Focusing on Challenges Facing Our Sciences" This presentation is dedicated to Matt.

As scientists, we seek rigor in our research. We conduct a careful review of prior results. We look at for approaches that have a proven track record. We carefully monitor results. We adjust approaches based on success.

When we engage with broader society or policy makers, we largely abandon that rigor. We are sure we know the best way to present a concept. We do no real research on existing empirical results related to effective communications. Even when presented with clear evidence of proven approaches, we ignore them. If the person on the other end does not “get it,” we see this as evidence of deficits on their part. We have a tendency to repeat the same message in the same way, only louder.

Scientists have a tendency to combine naiveté with arrogance. 2016 AMS Summer Policy Colloquium participants

In the face of a warning requiring action, people look for a trusted source to confirm that they should do something. Not necessarily an expert, just someone they trust. In the case of tornado warnings “… three variables were consistently and positively correlated with taking action: having a family plan, being a woman, and being located relatively close to the hazard.” “Risk Communication and Behavior: Best Practices and Research Findings” NOAA Social Science Committee, July 2016 http://www.performance.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/Risk-Communication-and-Behavior-Best-Practices-and-Research-Findings-July-2016.pdf

“This event is unprecedented & all impacts are unknown & beyond anything experienced. Follow orders from officials to ensure safety. #Harvey” [NWS Tweet]

“Risk communication is a process, not a product.” A depiction of the risk communication lifecycle, with activities organizations should consider pursuing at each stage. [From NOAA SSC report] This is hard. It requires disciplined planning and careful execution long before an event takes place. There are experts in these fields who can help. We need to admit that we are not the smartest person in the room .

Finding effective ways to communicate on short term risks requires a careful, disciplined approach. Do your homework. Work with trusted sources. Know who the community listens to and build relationships with those leaders. Plan for a long timeframe process with community. Work to build consistent messages that are easily understood by the target audiences. Test messages with target audiences — not your colleagues — and get feedback on what works. Be willing to change the message in response to that feedback. Establish multiple channels to communicate.

What about a long-term risk, like climate change? NOAA EPA The scientific evidence is overwhelming, yet there are those who do not accept the that humans are causing global warming or do not think it is a serious issue. The issue has become politically polarized (especially in the U.S.).

But research shows this increases the polarization (right). We “educate” the unconvinced, assuming that with greater understanding both liberal and conservative will be more convinced of the risk (left). [Kahan, et al., Nature Climate Change, 2012] But research shows this increases the polarization (right). Research in “cultural cognition” shows that people process information in ways that are consistent with their existing worldview, core identity, and that of the group with which they identify.

Resource: www.culturalcognition.net We might expect those with greater scientific literacy to better appreciate the risk of climate change (left). [Kahan, et al., Nature Climate Change, 2012] But, again, those with greater scientific literacy are even more polarized (right). Resource: www.culturalcognition.net

The approach most of us feel desperately compelled to pursue – even when we have been informed of these cultural cognition results – is one of providing ever more clear and reasoned expositions of the evidence. We can’t stop ourselves. We argue harder, and louder, and are just sure that if we show enough evidence they will finally “get it”!

When you find yourself in a hole … First, stop digging.

Research has shown that it is possible to get positive outcomes on climate change issues, but you will find the approach unsatisfying, because you have to give up the idea of winning the argument.   It comes back to: a disciplined approach treating the communication as a process relying on trusted sources within the target community And it requires focusing on the adoption of policies necessary to lessen the risks of climate change.

Find trusted leaders who are open to taking positive actions. A carefully planned process can achieve desired outcomes for climate action. Find trusted leaders who are open to taking positive actions. Develop an approach for those actions that aligns with their values. “Such individuals help to breed public support by example rather than argument: their actions and deeds conveyed that they trusted the science …” [Kahan and Carpenter, Nature Climate Change, May 2017] “Belief is often a basis for action. But once you’re committed to a course of action, you tend to find lots of reasons for why you did it.” [Ben Orlove, co-director of the Earth Institute’s Center for Research on Environmental Decisions]

Conclusion Our community has made incredible progress on the science, allowing us to quantify risks, predict hazards, and develop strategies for avoiding many of them. But if we do not approach our engagement with society in a careful scientific manner, the public will not get the full benefit of what our community has to offer.

Thank you