Download docx - School of Global Environmental Sustainability

AAAS Climate Science Panelist Opportunity Guide
Introduction
Thank you for offering your time and expertise as members of the AAAS Climate
Science Panel (CSP).
The CSP provides the opportunity for scientists to serve as champions of climate
science by directly engaging in media discussions around climate change and the
risks it entails. Through direct engagement, panelists will build a reputation for
clearly conveying accurate information about climate change and its risks in a
manner that promotes public understanding and informed decision-making.
The purpose of this memo is to clarify some of the different engagement
opportunities that exist or may arise over the coming months so you can determine
how best to contribute in a way that matches your interest, expertise and schedule.
Below you will find listed, in both summary and extended formats, descriptions of
possible opportunities.
Overview: Organized/planned media opportunities
I. Media availability notes
o Interviews (print or online publications)
o Appearances (TV or Radio) *
II. Translating science for the public
o Distilling information from new scientific research into key points or
validating new science (whether your research or other scientists’)
o Relating the importance of certain scientific research events or
developments
o Validating and explaining scientific research that could be used in
conversations re: climate risk or a risk framework for climate change
III. Information Sharing & Networking
o Passing along new research, institutions or connections that may be
useful or important
o Championing and supporting fellow scientists who lend their voice to
public discussions about climate change
Radio appearances can usually be taped at home, whereas TV appearances are
generally filmed at a studio
*
IV. Individual opportunities
o Op-eds
o Letters to the editor
o Guest blogging
Media Opportunity Summaries:
I. Media Availability Notes




What: Communications and media professionals will send
journalists/reporters a note about a current event or timely topic that
includes a list of experts who they can contact for additional information,
quotes, or simple verification.
Why: The science landscape is huge, and sometimes it’s difficult for
journalists to find experts on deadline. Adding expert availability a) makes a
journalist’s job easier and b) points them to sources that we know are well
versed in certain scientific subjects, disciplines or areas of research.
Getting involved: When you are asked to serve as an expert resource for a
media availability note, you should know that if you choose to participate
your name and contact information (generally phone and email) will be
listed in a note to journalists. You can also send us information about your
preferred availability in terms of time and media outlet preferences (print,
interviews, and/or broadcast).
Please see Appendix A for an example of a Media Availability Note
II. Translating science for the public and communications team



What: Scientific research contains technical speak and statistical detail that
requires careful communication to ensure public understanding. One avenue
is for scientists to communicate their expertise by engaging in the media
discussions around climate change.
Why: To help facilitate public understanding of climate science, it is
important to distill and translate key information from existing and new
scientific research in a manner that ensures it will be clear and more easily
digestible both for the media and thus, the general public.
Getting involved: As panelists you may be asked to help translate new
scientific research or validate the accuracy of public translations of climate
science found in the media from non-scientist climate communicators. We
might ask you to explain new research, a scientific concept or other materials
for the communications team’s internal use or for generating materials for
media outreach. Also, we may ask for your assistance with identifying the
relevance of certain scientific research events or why developments matter
in the larger context or research history. If you choose to assist with any of
these efforts you will be helping to maximize the benefits of scientific
research for the public. Specific duties associated with this may include
corresponding with communications team members, proofreading,
reviewing science backgrounders and fact-sheets, and other related tasks as
needed.
III. Information Sharing & Networking



What: The AAAS Climate Science Panel also represents a great new network
of scientific and communications experts. To realize the full potential of this
collaboration, it is critical that members take the opportunity to share
information and expertise.
Why: By sharing timely and accurate information about climate science
research developments, events, and institutions you can help strengthen the
Panel’s knowledge base and the communication team’s resources.
Getting involved: When you receive or hear about new climate change
research or other related developments, please share this information with
the comms team and your fellow panelists. Please also share information
about new institutions, research updates, and other opportunities you may
encounter that may be helpful to the group. This helps everyone remain on
the cutting-edge of climate issues.
IV. Individual opportunities




What: Op-eds, letters to the editor, public appearances or other commentary
opportunities
Why: Aside from the organized, periodic opportunities described above,
there are many other ways that you can contribute to the group’s goals. As
some of the most knowledgeable scientists in the country, it would be
beneficial to share your opinion on climate-related matters by writing in
widely read media outlets.
Getting involved: If there is a particularly inaccurate or misleading article or
editorial in a popular news source, you may volunteer or be asked to write a
letter to the editor. If published, the letter you write will help to correct any
misleading or inaccurate information that was contained in the original
article. Guest blogging, where an individual writes a column for someone
else’s blog, is another great opportunity for you to share your voice and
scientific work with different audiences.
Please see Appendix B for an example op-ed and Appendix C for an
example letter to the editor.
APPENDIX A: Example Media Availability Note
MEDIA ADVISORY
Experts Available to Comment on Economics of Climate Change
Two climate change policy developments on the Hill this week promise to
shine a light on the economics of climate change: on Wednesday, the House
Energy and Commerce Committee will hold a hearing on federal climate
change policies, and on Friday the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
will release its proposed regulations for carbon pollution emissions for new
power plants.
Whereas the committee and other opponents of the President’s climate action
plan will no doubt describe combatting climate change as excessively costly, a
closer look at the numbers suggests the opposite.
Here are some facts to consider as you cover these events this week and
beyond:
The Costs of Climate Change are Mounting
• In 2011 and 2012, there were 25 extreme weather events that cost $1
billion or more each.
• Research suggests the increased frequency and intensity of disasters during
this two-year period cost taxpayers approximately $1,610 per person.
Our Energy System is Outdated and Inefficient
• Modernizing the country’s outdated and inefficient power plants will have
an immediate economic and environmental impact by lowering
electricity demand and avoiding the steep costs of building new power
plants.
• Every $1 spent on energy efficiency improvements produces more than $3
in savings.
Acting Now will Save Us Money in the Long Run
• Economists found that if current trends continue, the total cost of climate
change will be as high as 3.6 percent of U.S. gross domestic product
(GDP) by 2100.
• Toward the end of this century, the undiscounted public health costs of
climate change impacts could be between the high tens of billions and
two hundred billion dollars per year (valued in current dollars).
• Since 1970, every $1 investment in compliance with Clean Air Act standards
has produced $4-8 in economic gain.
• Combined annual benefits of President Obama’s previous EPA regulations
exceeded their costs by between $10 and $95 billion per year, a
benefit/cost ratio ranging from 2-to-1 to 20-to-1.
These experts are available this week to discuss particular issues that emerge
or to speak about their research:
Dr. Frank Ackerman, Environmental Economist, Synapse Energy Economics
Inc.
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 617-453-7064
Dr. Laurie T. Johnson, Chief Economist, Climate & Clean Air Program, Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 202-513-6274/202-321-3962
Dr. William M. Shobe, Director, Center for Economic and Policy Studies,
Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 434-982-5376
Dr. James K. Boyce, Director, Program on Development, Peacebuilding and the
Environment and Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts
Amherst
Email: [email protected]
APPENDIX B: Example op-ed
Thursday, September 26, 2013
We need common sense on climate change
By J. Marshall Shepherd
Editor's note: Dr. J. Marshall Shepherd is the athletic association professor of
geography and director of the atmospheric sciences program at the University of
Georgia. He is also the president of the American Meteorological Society and a former
scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. Watch Dr. Shepherd on New Day on
Saturday, September 28, at 10:15 a.m. ET.
(CNN) -- When we go to major sporting events, my kids love to play the "Shuffle Hat"
game on the Jumbotron screen. A ball is placed under a hat, and the hats are shuffled
around quickly to distract you. If you keep your eye on the hat with the ball, you can
usually find it.
The public increasingly faces a similar shell game with climate science information.
In an era where some give more credence to climate predictions from rodents or
almanacs, clarity is needed.
Every four to six years, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assesses
and reviews the most recent science, technology and societal impacts related to
climate change. Created in 1988 by the United Nations and the World
Meteorological Organization, the IPCC will begin the roll out of its fifth assessment
report this week.
For me, the hat with the ball from the IPCC report is that it continues to affirm that
our planet is warming, and humans are a significant contributor to the warming.
Andrew Dessler, professor and author of "Introduction to Modern Climate Change,"
noted in a recent phone conversation the remarkable consistency in the main
conclusions of every previous IPCC report. The analysis also provides measured
thoughts on implications for the frequency and intensity of certain extreme weather
events.
Extreme weather and climate directly affect many aspects of society, including
public health, agriculture and national security. Navy Adm. Samuel Locklear,
commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, has noted that climate change is the
biggest new threat to Pacific security.
Recently, an elderly man from my church said, "Doc, what's going on? The weather
is different." For a public increasingly inquisitive about what they see around them,
it is important to be aware of the distracting hats whizzing around and to keep your
eye on the hat with the ball.
Many recent discussions have focused on "uncertainty." Yes, topics of uncertainty
exist in climate science as in any science, but this does not render the science
unusable. Most readers would take an umbrella or expect rain if the weather
forecast called for a 95% or greater chance of rain. How silly would it sound to say,
"Don't bother getting an umbrella because there is 5% uncertainty in that forecast"?
Dessler characterized the fuss over climate uncertainty in the new report this way:
"The change that has everyone in a tizzy is a slight enlargement of one side of the
error bar (range of error for climate sensitivity). If that's the biggest change, then
things are not changing very much."
Another way of thinking about it is: How silly would it be for a father and mother to
argue about whether their child is going to have a fever of 101.5 or 102?
High profile legal cases like the O.J. Simpson or George Zimmerman trials have
increased public understanding of "reasonable doubt." Environmental Health News'
Peter Dykstra made a point that resonated with me. Science doesn't operate on a
"reasonable doubt" basis. If so, I suppose we would take our chances and not grab
an umbrella because that 95% chance of rain is not 100%. Similarly, would most
parents not take action because the pediatrician's diagnosis has some uncertainty?
It is important to understand and respect the scientific process. It operates
differently than a court system, business decision or legislation.
The peer-reviewed science literature provides a mechanism to publish, scrutinize
and test climate science. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration
ensures that our foods and medicines are safe. Peer review serves a similar role for
science. Good science inherently involves skepticism. However, regardless of the
side of an issue, if the skepticism is always one-directional, is it skepticism or bias?
Recently, the IPCC has been criticized for being too slow or too big. This is a fair
discussion to have, but it shouldn't distract us from the findings in the latest report.
Science requires time to sort out the truth from fiction, for theories to be tested or
challenged. It is not well suited for tweets and blogs, which allow "zombie theories"
-- ideas that have been debunked but continue to live on. Along these lines, some
publications are removing or limiting online comments in order to protect scientific
integrity.
As I write this commentary, I am watching football highlights. I debate football
vigorously with my friends, but we always walk away friends. Irrespective of
viewpoint, calling people "deniers" or "warmists" is counterproductive and
inflammatory. There are deep-rooted feelings that have created zealotry, and at
times, all sides have crossed lines of civility. I am proud to say that I enjoy very solid
collegial and personal relationships with people who I sometimes disagree with on
climate science.
On the eve of the IPCC's fifth assessment report, I still have faith in the scientific
method, the common sense and keen eye of people, and human courtesy. These
things will keep our hat with the ball.
Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.
Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.
APPENDIX C: Example Letter to the Editor
Note: Oppenheimer was asked to write this letter to respond to Bjørn Lomborg’s
op-ed, “Going to extremes over climate change,” published in the Washington
Post on Sunday Sept. 15, 2013.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Letter to the Editor:
The real effects of global warming
Bjørn Lomborg claimed that high nighttime temperatures make temperature
differences “less extreme,” as if that’s a good thing. But high night temperatures kill
because they translate into no cooling respite for the young, old and the sick, those
who are at the most risk during deadly heat waves. In addition, some food crops
need cool nights to grow; their yields will decrease as nights warm up.
Mr. Lomborg also claimed that more intense precipitation will reduce water scarcity
without noting the increased risk of loss of lives and property from the flooding that
generally accompanies such events. The current situation around Boulder, Colo.,
reminds us just how disruptive rainstorms can be.
Likewise, hurricanes in the Atlantic are expected to shift to higher intensity. In the
meantime, rising seas are already raising flood levels and adding to the loss of
property, as we saw in Superstorm Sandy. Sea level rise added to the devastation by
combining with storm surge; as a result, in New York City alone, where sea level is
about a foot higher than a century ago, an additional 45,000 people were affected.
The science is always being perfected, but the warning is clear: Climate change is
already to blame for some extreme weather, and these extremes and others are
expected to intensify with further warming.
Michael Oppenheimer, New York
The writer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton
University, is a co-author of U.N Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
reports.