1. “Speed Bump”? Role play images
1) Cherry-picking short-term data cannot disprove a long-term trend; natural variability is not surprising

2. “Speed Bump”?
2) The 2000s were the warmest decade on record

3. “Speed Bump”?
3) Much of the warming has gone into the ocean

4. Outline Who Is Your Audience? a) In-Person vs. Print/Online Media
b) Deniers vs. Persuadables
What Is Your Goal?
a) Debunking vs. Securing A Correction
b) Should You Do It At All?
c) Aiming For The Future Instead

5. 1. a) Compelling People Strength Warmth Envy/Fear Admiration
STRENGTH: Ability, Will
-posture
-assertive
-own space
-steely eyed
-testosterone (which is an inhibitor of
WARMTH: Likeable
-relatable
-empathy
-mirroring
-smile
- … ) oxytocin
NOT ANGRY
Contempt
Pity

6. 1. a) Compelling People Connect: Our kids deserve the best education
Cognitive Dissonance if they don’t agree with you next

7. 1. a) Compelling Text Study Finds Climate Change Is Not A Hoax
TITLES
Study Finds Climate Change Is Not A Hoax
Another Study Shows Climate Change Is Real
FORMAT
FACT: Majority Of Scientists Were Predicting Warming In The 1970s Myth: In The 1970s, Most Scientists Were Predicting Global Cooling

8. 1. b) Deniers vs. Persuadables
It’s a discussion not an argument

9. 2. a) Debunking vs. Corrections
NBCNews.com falsely claimed that a recent report by the State Department found that the Keystone XL pipeline would create "as many as 42,000 new construction jobs." In fact, the report found that the pipeline would create less than 4,000 construction jobs and only 35 permanent jobs.

10. 2. b) Should You Do It At All
Backfire potential: you don't want to fan the flames, or to use a cancer analogy, you don't want to bomb a benign tumor with chemo, but if it's not benign, the goal is to kill it before it metastasizes
Why? Because you could be simply giving more attention to a negative story -- creating news where there was none. So you need to decide if it's worth responding to. Anything from a credible or high-profile source is likely worth responding to if there's a good response. But we also monitor smaller outlets including fringey, climate denier blogs looking for information that is new -- a new industry-funded report they're citing, a new study they're distorting, a new story they're telling. If it's breaking -- they can do several stories on it, as information comes to light -- that's trouble. Especially if it's a story that ties into a larger narrative -- one that fits in people's worldview and has resonance with people.
But occasionally, even if it's a conservative source attacking wind energy with an attack that's not likely to spread, if you can destroy a patently ridiculous claim they made, it can be worth it to reduce their credibility. e.g. A Fox News analyst claimed that solar wouldn't work in America because it's not sunny like Germany. Seriously. She wasn't a high-profile source, she didn't have new information, and her claim was unlikely to catch on. But the claim was so out there, that we were able to create a viral story out of it and secure a correction from Fox News -- a rare occurrence.

11. 2. c) Aiming For The Future
Get into the news cycle
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good
Can you tie news to current events?
Create A Media Meme: Simple Messages. Repeated Often. By Multiple Messengers.
Reporter Relations
Personalized s
Short Phone Calls First, Then Meetings
Reporters operate on deadlines
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good when a story is in the news cycle
You can always follow up with a rebuttal that is more comprehensive