Must say I find myself agreeing with you. Your idea to stake your agency on authenticity and the character content of this post. Strange that Coppenhagen did not get the support it deserved in digital space. I love Hopenhagen, the branding of the message. It was lost on the public though. Haiti stole the thunder on Twitter, on Facebook and new media haunts.

I felt many were gutless with Hopenhagen, the science did not come through. How is it the public is receptive to Movember and Haiti and not the very thing that their children will thank them for in years to come, not there prostate problem. I feel this post needs greater exposure.

Many of the so-called objective articles I see on climate change reflect a definite point of view.

When I teach journalism at a local university, I tell my students unless they are producing an editorial, their writing should take the Joe Friday “just the facts, ma’am,” approach and not expose their opinions and biases.

The wall of objectivity – which also protects the journalist – has long ago disappeared. This is particularly true in political stories where the advocacy approach has resulted in a loss of credibility.

I believe the most valuable information is in the last graph of this piece. It warns PR pros to be careful not to simply bestow credibility on scientists but to explain things in a factual, non biased manner.

A final note: I would give zero credibility to scientists who have altered data to promote their point of view. In doing so they have betrayed their professional integrity and done damage to the causes they espouse. Reporters and PR pros who excuse or defend such fraud will damage their own reputations.

Richard:
Your point about explaining "science" in a concise, factual manner is precisely what is needed and I am delighted that you pointed it out. If science is presented to the public-at-large in a way that gets understood and processed, it will build advocacy and speed acceptance and then change. If this happens, governments will be rendered weak in face of public outrage -- especially so as to climate change, since all will be impacted.
Noemi Pollack

I agree with this last comment posted. Due to the tragedy in Haiti, the disucssion in Coppenhagen was far less agressive than it could have been.

Hopenhagen was a strong branding message, however, I think that we tend to overlook long term damage such as the climate crisis when there's something to address 'in the now.'

It's unfortunate that the opportunity in Copenhagen was somewhat lost because of scientists not knowing how to better communicate these facts to the general public. I admire the University of Long Island for taking the innitaitive and addressing this problem which has caused set backs for many years.

I'm so glad you've blogged on this subject, Richard, but I would go much further in expressing pessimism about the way the global scientific community and IPCC are responding to the corrosive impact of the climate change deniers, who are using the failure at Copenhagen and pedantry to undermine the political consensus that existed prior to Copenhagen for global climate change action.

Perhaps I am being too alarmist, but the IPCC needs to consider the possibility that the smear tactics are not only working, but that the tide has already turned as a result of climate deniers' simple and alluring message that "they've lied, we can all forget about it".

That message dovetails perfectly to the profound sense of powerlessness that most people have with respect to climate change. Just recycling old newspapers and tin cans isn't going to save the world and we all know it.

In the meantime, the undermining of IPCC science looks to me like a classic "loss of trust" issue, where the previously "trusted" scientists will take too long to realise - or perhaps may never get over the sense of affront to be disbelieved - and fail to mount an effective strategy to regain trust in their work.

This will not be achieved by rebuttal, but by acknowledging up-front the loss of trust and starting right from the beginning again to rebuild climate science models in a transparent manner that allows sceptics to have their say on the way through.

The most likely reason for something like that not to happen is that it will take so damn long. But that's the point - trust lost takes a long time to restore. The less effort is made at the critical moment when trust is lost, the longer that timeframe will be.

Richard, Thanks for the post. I heard you speak at the Climate Disclosure Project Launch during Climate Week NYC in New York. Your admonition to "tell stories" directly affected a keynote I gave at Purdue University the following month. My presentation was about applying the ideas of W. Edwards Deming to climate change. I told the story of the Northwest Passage and all the men who gave their lives trying to find a route, getting stuck in the ice, wintering for consecutive seasons, and many perishing. For 400 years the search was deadly and futile. Today however the once impossible task is accomplished by a cargo ship (even without re-inforced hulls) in a matter of weeks! The contrast gave context and perspective to climate change, and it told a human story. I got many positive comments and I believe it got people thinking differently. Another tool I have used is to embrace climate change as a theory. Gravity, Evolution, Relativity - all theories - have brought about new knowledge and changed the way human beings understand and interact with their surroundings. Climate change theory is just as powerful and is also bringing forth new knowledge.

As public relations professionals, we are called to be open communicators between organizations and the public. A middle man, if you will, between the high-powered intellectuals and “average Joes.” Science is a difficult subject for a majority of people due to the content of the topic, the concepts, the jargon. It is hard for the average person to comprehend and interpret data like scientists do. That is why scientists need to improve their ability to communicate on matters that concern the entire public, especially when they are as controversial as global warming. I agree with you, that PR should be involved in the release of scientific discoveries, findings and studies because communication is key. In order for scientists not to lose their credibility, they need a way to learn how to improve their delivery of “accurate and compelling information” in an unbiased way that is easy for everyone to understand. It is vital, however, that these PR professionals who are presenting scientific information do not overstep their boundaries and move from an unbiased perspective to a biased one. If you did not conduct the research yourself, you can’t stand behind the facts and data and be able to explain it better than the person who actually conducted the study. As public relations specialists, we are here to assist with the communication process, not to persuade someone that fiction is fact. We can not make something that is not credible, credible, which is why we must solely present the facts, but just in a way that every single person in your target audience can understand and comprehend them.

It is a very valid point that PR practitioners need to be careful on how they communicate facts and information from the science world to the public. The public depends on journalists and PR practitioners to find out the truth and clearly communicate what scientists are finding out, so that the public can read and learn in a language that is easy for them to understand and still be knowledgeable of what is going on in their world and surroundings.

It is the job of journalists and PR practitioners to convey accurate information and to hold accountable the scientists who are releasing the information. If scientists do not have people who are checking their work and reading and understanding their material, there would be no accountability.

It is also necessary to see who is funding the projects of the scientists and to make sure that the information they release is accurate and not twisted for the people who supply the money. The public needs to know that so the scientific world does not produce biased information or information that is incorrect.

I agree with you that PR practitioners have to be the ones that find out the facts and give credibility to the information that scientists and researchers discover. PR practitioners do not need to debate government actions or explain hypotheses, but simply explain the findings and help the public have a full knowledge.

I agree with you that this initiative at Stony Brook University is an excellent idea and will be to the great benefit of emerging scientists. The average person neither has the intellect nor the patience to understand the important information that scientists have to report. It is definitely to a scientist’s advantage to learn how to better communicate their message so the public will be truly able to understand the latest advancements in science.

Another aspect that needs help is making science compelling. Even if scientists can clearly communicate their message they must also remember that people often find science to be dull and must not only make it understandable but also interesting.

As public relations practitioners we can also have a great influence on getting out the messages of these scientists. We know the way people hear things best and can help scientists communicate their message, like you mentioned, with the least bias possible. And many times it can be easier for PR practitioners to speak for the scientists so that they are able to focus on their work. If we each focus on our strengths then we can each be successful and can accomplish a similar goal of distributing the scientific information to the world so it can benefit everyone’s lives.

As PR professionals, it is our duty to communicate the ideas of our clients to the global community through different media outlets. When it comes to scientists, you make a good point in acknowledging that scientists are not always the best at explaining their findings in an understanding way to men and women with only a common education of science. In a situation where advancements in knowledge have occurred in areas like global warming or stem cell research, the information must be understandable. The Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook University is on the cutting edge of journalism, providing ways for scientists, journalists, and PR professionals alike to learn how to tell science stories clearly and understandably. It is important for PR professionals to take advantage of this new education. When asked by a client to relay information to people involving complicated scientific research it is important that we can do so in a clear and precise way that allows people to walk away in total understanding of the findings. We must be the bridge between the scientists and the people. The only way to do that is to work hard with the scientists to find a way to take their research and present it in a way that does them justice but can be read and understood by a high-schooler. That is a PR professional’s job, to educate and inform.