This edition of Beyond the Ice is made up of highlights from a round-table discussion about communicating climate science in the media. You can listen to the full conversation on British Antarctic Survey‘s Beyond the Ice podcast.
Story or statistics? Urgency or alarmism? Top line or deep dive? Tom Sheldon from the Science Media Centre spoke to three climate scientists at BAS about about the state of climate science in the media, and what they’ve learned about communicating to the general public.
Tom chaired the discussion with Professor Dame Jane Francis , Dr Emma Boland and Dr Ella Gilbert, covering topics from the nitty gritty of what language they use, to describing their dream documentary series.
The conversation delved into the nuances of science communication, from the importance of storytelling to the problem of politicisation. They share their top tips for talking about a topic that can seem scary and divisive, and what motivates them to keep going.
Answering the call
One of the significant hurdles that scientists face when engaging with the media is self-doubt. Media are keen to speak to experts, but scientists can be hesitant to accept interview requests, believing others might be better suited to the task. Tom Sheldon, whose job it is to work with scientists speaking to the media, highlighted this common sentiment:
“One reason I hear from scientists for turning down an interview or being hesitant is ‘I’m not the right person for this’. They can imagine the other five people who they think should be talking. And then I tell them the kind of questions that they’re going to be asked in the interview, and they say, ‘oh, yeah, I can answer those’.”
Dr. Emma Boland encouraged her peers to feel more confident about their expertise – and the skills scientists have to research accurate answers to details they don’t already know. She talked through her own hesitancy to engage with the media, and coming to the realisation that she was well qualified to speak:
“You know more than 98% of people on the planet – and you know people who know more than you, but that doesn’t mean you’re not qualified. You always know enough. I think that’s the thing that I’ve always taken away.”
Motivations and audience engagement
The whole group agreed that a big motivation in taking on media and public engagement came from a desire to make climate science accessible and relevant to everyone. Dr. Ella Gilbert, who is active on social media and YouTube, spoke about her commitment to breaking down complex information:
“Climate change affects all of us – no matter whether we think it does or not. And I hate to think that people would be turned off by the fact that it’s a scientific problem and don’t understand it. Everyone should have the right to understand it in a way that makes sense to them, so that they can understand or do with that information what they will, whether that’s changing things or not. And being in the privileged position of being educated in climate science, I can be a translator of the science and that technical information.”
The scientists also all agreed that understanding and tailoring their approach to the audience is key to effective communication. Ella said:
“You’ve got to think about who you’re talking to and what they want to know as well, because you’ve got to serve a purpose by being there.”
Professor Jane Francis shared that her approach now revolves around storytelling, which she finds resonates more with a general audience than simply presenting the data that might compel her science colleagues:
“It’s about stories. I try to have a whole raft of stories somewhere in my head that I can refer to when somebody asks about a particular point. And I think that gets a much better reception than just learning the numbers.”
Another big consideration is the public’s appetite for difficult news and challenging stories. The group discussed the conflicting feelings they had – that climate change now has an ongoing presence across the news agenda, but that the issue still feels lacking in appropriate urgency. Emma reflected:
Climate scientists feel like the urgency of the problem isn’t coming across. And then I’ve talked with this about this with various journalists before and they say, well, we’re stuck with what people will read. We have the data now from the, from websites. We can look at when people stop scrolling. We can look at what people click on. People do not want to read those stories. We can write them, but people won’t read them.
The language used can also make a big difference to tone, and the group debated the relative merits of ‘global warming’, ‘climate change’ and even ‘climate emergency’. With her background in studying climates from previous geological ages, Jane also pointed out how all these phrases had the potential to make the problem facing humanity sound more abstract:
“The crisis is with humans, not with the planet. We are coming into a new climate state, which is caused by warming. The Earth can take care of itself. It’s been in much greater extreme states before, and it’s always resolved as cyclical climate change – but at a much, much slower rate than the way that we humans are changing it. The thing that is going to suffer the most is us, the humans, because we are changing our atmosphere and our whole environment so fast that the question is: are we going to be able to adapt to it?”
The role of scientists in media
Communicating through the media presents a unique set of challenges for scientists. In an era where sensationalism often trumps substance, scientists must find ways to convey accurate information while also engaging a public that is often overwhelmed by competing narratives. This requires a delicate balance between maintaining scientific integrity and adapting to the demands of media formats that favour storytelling over data. Tom reflected on this balancing act:
“Journalists are storytellers and so you have to be adding to that story. But I guess your role as a scientist within that story is to be able to contribute something, which is both relevant to the public and interesting to hear, but also doing that thing that you are uniquely positioned to be able to do, which is couch everything in the very best evidence and the expertise that you’ve amassed over the years. If you could do those two things in parallel, then it’s a success.”
But the group also agreed there were moments when well-presented data can resonate with a non-expert audience. Jane shared a powerful example of how a graph-based display in the reception at British Antarctic Survey remains on her hit list for non-scientific audiences:
“When we give tours of the science that BAS does, one of the places we stop is at the freezer with the ice core and we look at a graph. It shows carbon dioxide and temperature over the last 800,000 years and then a huge kick that shows us where we are in carbon dioxide now. Would you ever think about showing a graph to a politician with an arts background? But you know, you stop and explain it.
And every tour that I’ve taken with a minister, with a politician, or a non-scientific member of government – they’ve taken a photograph of that graph, because they understand it and they can absolutely get the point that we are in a completely different world than we were pre-industrial times, and that it shows what we’re doing to the environment. And they don’t… it doesn’t necessarily scare them, but it’s just information that puts climate into context.”
Trust in scientists
Trust is a central theme in the relationship between scientists and the public. In an era of misinformation, maintaining public trust is more important than ever. Jane observed that, despite some skepticism, the general public tends to trust scientists:
“We need to be able to separate fact from fiction. I think the public look to scientists for that reason. I mean, there are some people who don’t believe scientists. But at large do think that the public appreciate that scientists spend a long time investigating a problem. And it may not be the answer to everything, but they do have a wealth of knowledge about a particular topic that they may not have.”
This trust is a vital resource that scientists must nurture and protect, particularly in the context of climate science, where the stakes are so high. This trust is built on the scientific method, a rigorous process of inquiry and validation that underpins the work of all scientists.
Ella provided a practical analogy to illustrate why people should trust climate scientists, even if they don’t fully understand the underlying science:
“I often use the example: if you’re going to deny climate change, then why would you walk over a bridge? If you can implicitly trust that an engineer has done their job without knowing the specific mechanics of how that’s going to happen. And it’s the same: you trust that the scientist or the practitioners of science have used the scientific method appropriately.”
Navigating the challenges
As climate science becomes increasingly politicised, scientists face new challenges in communicating their findings. The conversation highlighted the growing danger of climate change being lumped together with other politically charged issues, leading to a polarisation of the discourse. Emma expressed concern over this trend:
“There’s a dangerous trend at the moment where certain politicians are trying to tag climate change and net-zero and ‘woke’ together in a kind of bundle of things that are not to be trusted, things that ‘people don’t want’. It’s very effective. So we’ve got to be very aware of that, I think, as climate scientists, the politicians are becoming a bit more wary of you talking about climate science and talking about net zero because there’s certain areas of politics which have decided that it’s effective to use those as buzzwords. We need to not let it become a right-left thing, it doesn’t matter which party you support: climate change will happen to you.”
Ella further emphasised the issue of media polarisation, particularly in the context of online platforms and highly personalised news algorithms:
“I think it’s about values at the moment. It kind of gets parcelled up and used as fodder in this media landscape with increasing polarisation. You especially see that online with social media, and YouTube and TikTok and all of these kinds of environments. It doesn’t feel like climate change or climate science particularly is getting a fair airing in those sorts of outlets to me.”
Words of wisdom
As the discussion drew to a close, Emma offered practical advice for anyone on how to engage in meaningful conversations about climate change, emphasising the importance of a personal, and non-confrontational approach:
“We do know from surveys that most people are worried about climate change and do want more to be done about it, but they think other people aren’t as worried as them. So talk about it. Talk about it with your friends. Talk about it with your family. Don’t frame it as judging and say, ‘stop eating that meat’ – but maybe talk about why you aren’t eating meat, for example, if you’re not. Or: why you thought ‘maybe I won’t take that flight’. Bring it up as a conversation. It doesn’t have to be a fight. At the end of the day climate change affects every decision, every part of our lives. So why not say it out loud?”
Listen to the full discussion
Beyond the Ice, from British Antarctic Survey, is available on Apple podcasts, Spotify, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.