GeoLog

The UK House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee has recently launched an inquiry entitled “Climate Change: public understanding and its policy implications”, which is due to address the issue of communicating climate change research. This inquiry was raised following a recent surge in climate change scepticism and a diminishing public concern regarding its effects, with a survey suggesting that 76% of people were concerned by climate change in 2009 against 81% in 2008.

Climate change is certainly a topical issue. It lies at the junction between a panel of physical scientific disciplines (atmospheric physics, oceanography, ecology, chemistry and computing) and social sciences, being a prominent topic in politics and policy-making. There seems to be a constant flow of climate-related articles in the media. They may describe the negative effects of climate change on our environment or the place of climate and environmental change within education, with recent talks to include climate change on the school curriculum in the US being but one recent example. But to what extent do people really take notice? What does the public actually think of climate change and do they really consider our environment to be at risk? As a climate scientist, this got me thinking: How can we better communicate scientific results and the overwhelming consensus within the research community that action needs to be taken?

The inquiry: What, who and how?

In their call for evidence, the Commons Select Committee has outlined a series of questions to be discussed at the inquiry:

• What is the state of public understanding and opinion on climate change issues? What is the role of publicly funded scientists, Government Departments, scientific advisers and the media in communicating climate change?
• Who does the public trust?
• How can public understanding be improved? How important is this understanding in developing appropriate policy?

So what does the public think about climate change?

In September 2012, scientists from the British Antarctic Survey, the Universities of Cambridge and Cardiff and the Global Sustainable Institute at Anglia Ruskin University published a report on public attitudes to climate science and how this science is represented in the media. The purpose of the report was to examine how climate change research is being communicated, the public’s attitude towards it and the means by which this communication could be improved. To go about answering these questions, the investigators carried out a series of focus groups across the UK population. In each case, participants were presented with a range of UK newspaper, radio and television articles on climate science and invited to pick one article for discussion. They were then asked to judge the chosen piece based on the level of interest in the subject, how easy it was to understand and where the news piece could be improved.

Tongue of a glacier on Baffin Island, Canada. Credit: Angsar Walk.

The study revealed that 80% of the survey participants did believe that the world’s climate is changing through a combination of both human activity and natural variability. However, many people felt that they were not properly informed about new findings in climate science and therefore felt relatively uninterested in the field. More importantly, nearly half of the surveyed people believed that scientists exaggerate the seriousness of climate change and trust in “authority groups” such as government, industry, environmental groups, scientists and the media has decreased in recent years.

Climate change and public opinion – who matters?

Despite this growing skepticism, a recent poll published by climate and environmental policy news fact-checker Carbon Brief revealed that the UK population trusts scientists more than any other source to inform them about climate change. In second position, the poll placed Green charities, closely followed by BBC journalists. Far behind and in last place came both politicians and social media, with only 7% of voters trusting these sources to provide accurate, up-to-date information. In addition, the poll showed that as many as 64% of participants did not trust politicians’ information and 53% would not trust the information they read in social media.

Despite trusting scientists most, the number of concerned citizens is still dwindling. So how can we as scientists better convey our results and our concern? The last issue of the journal Nature Climate Change dedicated an editorial to the “climate consensus” and the factors affecting public opinion. The article revealed that the public would be more likely to believe that human causes are affecting long-term climate change if there was a clear scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming is indeed happening. Luckily, this consensus does exist among the vast majority of climate scientists, so where is this information lost in translation?

Could, may, possibly, maybe… The uncertainty paradox

While the vast majority of people trust scientists, the 2012 report’s working groups also revealed that uncertainty is a big issue for public trust, with readers getting frustrated at fuzzy and seemingly contradictory statements. What is the point of saying that something could possibly happen without developing on this statement? On what basis should people then make decisions? The difficulty is of course that natural variability of the climate system and the complexity of the physical mechanisms involved mean that climate predictions intrinsically have a degree of uncertainty associated with them. There is no real debate among the climate scientific community that we humans are influencing our climate and that this will have consequences on a number of different parameters and sub-systems.

Global warming predictions for the end of the 21st century from the Hadley Centre HadCM3 climate model. Source: Wikimedia Commons.

The question is what impact do these changes have in different parts of the world and to what degree can climate models assign a particular outcome to a specific human source? It is perhaps the definition of this uncertainty that scientists need to spend time explaining. Yes, a cluster of climate models may produce a range of results for a particular experiment. But ultimately they may all show the same trend or allow us to draw hard conclusions that can be translated to the public. When talking about climate forecasting at a recent Royal Meteorological Society meeting, Swedish Meteorologist Anders Persson stated that uncertainty is inevitable but must be acknowledged. He suggested that we stop blaming the models and start taking responsibility for uncertain forecasts. Uncertainty exists, full stop. Let’s start acknowledging it and, more importantly, explaining it.

So how can we scientists improve the communication of climate change research?

Given that scientists are in fact trusted and have a good understanding of the state of the art of climate research and the areas that still need exploring, it seems to me it is up to us to reach out to the public and talk about our research and its results. If, for each paper published in top scientific journals, the authors associated a short, simple piece of outreach to explain the steps taken to come to their conclusion and explain why they trust their results, perhaps more people would find an interest in climate research and would be willing to take personal action. But without this incentive and hard evidence clearly agreed upon by scientists, it is perhaps understandable that climate change is not the priority on everybody’s personal agenda. To put it in the words of financier Jeremy Grantham: “Be persuasive. Be brave. Be arrested (if necessary)”. In other words, let’s take risks and show our involvement and concern to make sure that it is heard by the public and policy-makers. This is possibly more easily achieved by established professors (and financiers such as Jeremy Grantham himself) than by young scientists trying to fight their way through to the next fellowship and piece of funding. But I believe the bottom line is true. Scientists must make a stand and show their agreement. Most of us are concerned and have the data to back this up, so let’s make it clear and give people a way to understand our work and ask their questions.

By Marion Ferrat, postdoctoral researcher at Imperial College London

With the mammoth task of Storifying #EGU2013 this week, I’m wondering just how useful social media, particularly Twitter, has become at conferences.

While having a hashtag for a conference with 4,684 oral, 8,207 poster, and 452 PICO presentations (#EGU2013) won’t give you an insight into what’s going on in all the sessions – there’s simply too much science – it provides a guide to what’s happening next (as speakers share their sessions) and is an indicator of the “hot topics” as multiple media-savvy participants share their experience of particular sessions. More importantly though, it gives people attending the conference an opportunity to interact and extend their discussion online.

When there’s over 3,800 tweets on the #EGU2013 hashtag during the General Assembly, curating a scintillating story that also falls into the category of ‘short and sweet’ no longer seems achievable. But do we need it? Perhaps it’s better to preserve the discussion that surrounds topical sessions such as the Great Debate on fracking and shale gas (Storify to come – watch this space!) and short courses, which can then be used as a resource for hints and tips later.

Just a sample from #EGU2013 (click for larger).

While making something public via Twitter can bring up the subject of potentially being “scooped” on science before it’s published. At a conference you are already communicating your work externally, so this is not an issue. Instead, it presents an opportunity to communicate your research with the wider public and scientific community. Here are some of the benefits:

Enriched discussions

Twitter provides opportunities for a much richer discussion during a conference – not only are you listening to the speaker’s insights on a topic, but you can tune in to the knowledge and experience of others in the audience. The knowledge gathered in a scientific conference is phenomenal and in the case of the EGU General Assembly, having over 11,000 brilliant scientific minds at your fingertips, why wouldn’t you ask a question?! Okay, so they aren’t all on Twitter, but the chance of a well-informed reply is high, so it’s still worth asking!

Remote participation

To add to the already enriched discussion, when something is being broadcast on Twitter, anyone can follow the goings on – be it the colleagues you left back in the lab, the geologist whose fieldwork clashed with the event, or the interested twitterer, who happens upon the hashtag! If a talk is being live tweeted (someone is tweeting updates about the speaker’s presentation) then it’s even easier for others to participate in the conference online and ask their own questions of the audience and the speaker.

Leaving a legacy

So we have a rich discussion, that involves members of the audience and connects with the wider public, potentially sharing the science with individuals across the globe – is there more to gain from a conference Twitter feed? Yes. The online discussion can be condensed and curated using Storify, which leaves a legacy of the discussion that people can return to later. Take the #EGUjobs session for example, Sarah Blackford and Helen Goulding gave an excellent talk on how to apply for jobs both in and out of academia last week and you can return to their recommendations here.

What did you gain from the conference Twitter feed? Fancy more of the same next year? Less? Or an even bigger online presence in 2014? Leave a comment below, or include it in the conference feedback form and we’ll do our best to make it a reality. 

The enormous space and time scales that Geology covers makes teaching it a challenge, one best overcome by field experience, but it’s a rare thing for a school to be able to explore Geological wonders on the other side of the world. So what if someone brought it to you?

Olivier Galland (who we had the chance to interview in December), together with Caroline Sassier, set up an educational project (The Andean Geotrail) centred on their cycling adventures in the Andean mountains. Seventeen schools followed their 8,000 kilometre journey from Lima to Ushuaia, as they blogged their way from one geo-highlight to the next.

The stunning photos from their travels are being exhibited at the General Assembly (Exhibition Gallery on the First Floor, Green Level) – it’s definitely worth dropping in!

Caroline Sassier on the The Andean Geotrail project, lost in the immensity of the Bolivian Altiplano. Photograph: Olivier Galland.

Interested in working in geoscience education and outreach? We have just the opportunity for you…

EGU Fellowships offer young scientists the opportunity to gain experience in science management and communication at the EGU Executive Office in Munich, Germany. Fellows are strategically deployed to develop new initiatives and capabilities for long-term use by the EGU. The Educational Fellowship will last six months and can be extended for a further six months.

In September 2013, we intend to appoint a Fellow to expand the Union’s educational programme with activities that are targeted directly at school students. These activities will complement our current efforts, such as the Geosciences Information for Teachers (GIFT) workshops, which are aimed primarily at teachers. The Fellow will further assist our Education Committee with an EGU-UNESCO collaboration intended to expand GIFT to Africa.

We are looking for a good team player with excellent interpersonal, organisational, and communication skills to fill this role. The successful applicant will have a masters or PhD in the Earth, space or planetary sciences, experience in science education, flexibility to travel frequently (especially to France), and an expert command of English. Preference will be given to candidates who are also proficient in French, and who are familiar with film or web-based media.

The Fellowship salary is according to the German public service pay scale and can be up to E13 TV-L, depending on expertise and experience.

Applications should include

• A cover letter and CV
• Two writing samples that demonstrate the candidate’s ability to communicate science to a school-age audience (blog posts, magazine or newspaper articles, etc.). An educational video or podcast can replace one of the writing samples
• Contact details of two referees

The deadline for application is 24 March and interviews will be conducted during the 2013 EGU General Assembly, which takes place in Vienna over 7–12 April. Further details about the position and how to apply can be found here.

Feel free to contact Dr Bárbara Ferreira, the Media and Communications Manager, at media@egu.eu or on +49-89-2180-6703 if you have any questions about the position.

Geotalk, featuring short interviews with geoscientists about their research, continues this month with a Q&A with Jane Robb from University College London (UCL), who tells us about the excitement of geo-outreach and importance of conserving heritage collections. If you’d like to suggest a scientist for an interview, please contact Sara Mynott.

Jane Robb

First, could you introduce yourself and let us know a bit about your current work at UCL?

Hi, I am Jane Robb and I currently work as a research assistant at UCL’s Faculty of the Built Environment (The Bartlett) in student experience and pedagogy. This is quite a departure from my background – I have a BSc in geology from the University of Edinburgh and an MRes in heritage science from UCL. Not that this explains everything – I find that most people don’t know what ‘heritage science’ is. So let me enlighten you:

Heritage science is a relatively new discipline that incorporates scientific methods and practice into conservation of heritage objects. After my geology degree, I was not enticed by the prospect of a career in oil or mining and stumbled across this research masters. Having had a lifelong interest in geology, I had an affinity for all things old which incorporated museums and archaeology so I decided to combine these two passions in doing this MRes degree.

The degree programme was nested in the Centre for Sustainable Heritage in UCL’s Faculty of the Built Environment, which then led me to get the job as a research assistant improving the student experience and pedagogical practice across the faculty.

So what did you end up doing in your MRes?

Since the Masters was research based, I had the power to mould the degree into something very unique to my own interests. I really wanted to work at the Natural History Museum but keep my connection with geology, which led to me working directly with the famous Russell Collection – one of the best British topographical mineralogical collections. I was really interested in how the collection was managed, and comparing this to the way other heritage collections are managed. Unfortunately geological collections are not commonly associated with our heritage, but do form an important cultural and scientific resource which we have a responsibility to preserve in the best possible condition.

To ensure heritage collections are preserved and that appropriate conservation decisions are made for objects, they are often assessed using an understanding of their value. I am not talking about financial value here, but other values that can often contribute to attribution of financial value: educational, historic, personal, inspirational values and so on. Once again, geological collections have been left in the shadows when it comes to valuation of this kind, and subsequently collections are under-cared for and missing integral parts. I used social science techniques such as interviews and questionnaires and subsequent statistical analysis to understand what expert stakeholders (curators, scientists, conservators) value about geological collections. The results will then be used to help better care for and manage geological collections, and my supervisors and I are planning on publishing my thesis.

As well as working at UCL, you’re also the Communications Officer for Geology for Global Development – how do you balance your work with active science outreach?

I love doing geoscience outreach. I have worked for four years in science centres, education forums and museums as a science communicator and developed my own projects, training and resources around these roles. Because of this I love to spend my time volunteering for organisations such as Geology for Global Development (GfGD). I also volunteer with Rockwatch, the club for young geologists run by the Geological Association, where I write articles for their magazine, judge their annual competition and facilitate events. Of course, I also have my own blog where I like to discuss issues within science communication, specifically geology and I am also trying to find the time to complete training to become a STEM Ambassador and contribute some more to the WikiProject:Geology! It does all manage to balance out though – I manage my time with the help of Google Calendar and task lists, and because I enjoy what I do it means that I never feel bogged down by these commitments.

I also like to do some of my own projects – like the geology of Skyrim or the Twitter and Pinterest mini-project ‘SciAdvent’ where I made an advent calendar which told the history of the Earth in 25 days from a geological perspective. Both projects were just silly things I cooked up, but of all the things I have ever done, they were the projects that managed to get exponential views! Especially the geology of Skyrim, current views count on my blog of 60,000 in one week!

My work at UCL compliments the skills I need to communicate science as well. I run an event called Bartlett Showoff – inspired by the popular Science Showoff with built environment professionals from The Bartlett which has turned out a great success as well as a new scheme for graduates where they can become ambassadors for the faculty when they graduate and finally organising an international conference! Learning how to organise these events from scratch myself is invaluable, and communicating to such a different audience in all of the student experience resources I develop offers a good challenge. The Bartlett’s ‘architecture speak’ is so wildly different from science speak!

What are your future research plans – or do you hope to move further into science communication?

I am really excited about (hopefully!) publishing my Masters research, but I don’t know whether more research is on the cards for me right now. I would like to continue down the road of science communication, and at the moment I am building my ‘portfolio’ for this!

What advice would you give early-career researchers looking to communicate their work with the public?

Well, there is no harm in coming up with a project just by yourself and taking it forward. You don’t need to be part of something official to communicate science – just go out and do it! However, remember to take notice of when something does and doesn’t work – don’t get carried away with an idea just because you think it’s good.

Make sure you have a blog and talk about what you do, but also wider issues associated with your field and the challenges of communicating in it. Have a presence on Twitter – something I have found out working with GfGD and UCL is that not enough students are taking full advantage of Twitter as a resource for information and discussion on the latest topics that relate to them. Use it!

And finally there is no right or wrong way to start out in communicating your work. No one expects you to be a genius with your first try, whether this be a blog post, a set at Science Showoff or a full on event. I started out with no knowledge of communication working at a science centre and was there full time every summer for four years (and part-time during term). Every day I met different people who responded differently to various forms of explanation or interaction with science, and this taught me more than anything that to be a good communicator you have to be adaptable: you need to understand that there are so many diverse audiences out there and if you start learning how to be a communicator you will never stop.

Interested in free books and getting published? The European Geosciences Union has an opportunity for you…

The Union’s newsletter, GeoQ, is a magazine distributed for free to all Union members – that’s around 12,000 scientists – and we’re looking for reviewers wiling to write short book reviews for it!

Whether you are a young scientists or an established researcher in the Earth, planetary and space sciences, we would love to hear from you.  Reviewers will receive the books free of charge and their work will be published in the newsletter, accompanied by their name and a short biography. It’s an ideal opportunity for scientists with a flair for science writing interested in seeing their texts published in a newsletter with a wide readership – and, of course, there are the free books!

GeoQ, the EGU’s newsletter

Contact GeoQ’s Chief Editor, Bárbara Ferreira, at media@egu.eu if you are interested in reviewing books for the newsletter, or if you have any questions about this opportunity. Please also inform Bárbara about your areas of expertise – you can check the list of EGU Divisions for reference.

We have a vacancy for a science communication or science journalism student in Europe to work at the press office of the 2013 General Assembly, which is taking place in Vienna, Austria, from 07-12 April. Applications from geosciences students with science communication experience are also welcomed. The student will join the team assisting the EGU press officer and the journalists at the press centre, and is expected to help run press conferences. Other tasks include writing and/or editing for GeoLog, the EGU blog, and distributing EGU Today, the daily newsletter at the General Assembly.

This is a paid opportunity for science communication students to gain experience in the workings of a press office at a major scientific conference, and to interact with journalists, freelance science writers and public information officers. Similarly to other student assistants at the conference, the successful candidate will receive €600 for the week and will be given support towards travel expenses.

The positions are open to University students or recent graduates in science communication, science writing or science journalism (preference will be given to postgraduate students). Applicants must have an expert command of English and good computer and Internet skills.

Applications should include
* Cover letter and CV (one page each) summarising relevant experience
* Two recent writing samples (published or unpublished, aimed at a general audience)

Application documents (in English) should be submitted by e-mail in a single file to Bárbara Ferreira, the EGU Media and Communications Officer (media@egu.eu). Bárbara can also be contacted for informal enquiries.

The deadline for applications is 1 February 2013.

Press conference at the 2012 EGU General Assembly. Credit: Sue Voice

The European Geosciences Union (EGU, www.egu.eu) is Europe’s premier geosciences organisation, dedicated to the pursuit of excellence in the Earth, planetary, and space sciences for the benefit of humanity, worldwide. The EGU organises a General Assembly that attracts over 10,000 scientists each year, as well as reporters interested in hearing about the latest research in topics that range from volcanology and earthquakes to climate science, and from solar physics to planetary science.

The EGU is seeking to appoint a Communications Assistant to work with the EGU Media and Communications Officer in maintaining and further developing media-related and science information communications between the EGU and its membership, the working media, and the public at large. The position will be based at the EGU Executive Office in Munich, Germany.

More information about this vacancy, including main tasks, requirements, application materials, and salary and starting date, is available in PDF format or on the EGU website.

Informal enquiries about this position can be made to the Media and Communications Officer, Dr Bárbara Ferreira (media@egu.eu, +49-89-2180-6703). Applications should be submitted by e-mail in a single file to Dr Bárbara Ferreira by 15 November.

Do you know anyone who might be interested in this position? The EGU would be grateful if you shared this opportunity widely.

Infographics, images containing graphics, text, and statistics, are increasingly being used to share complex scientific concepts with a wider audience. They are powerful communication tools because they can be spread virally across social networks, furthering the public understanding of important areas within the geosciences, including climate change, natural resources, and the solar system.

To celebrate our 10th anniversary, we invite you to design an attractive and informative infographic about the EGU. The winner will receive a €100 Amazon gift voucher and their creation will be published in the next issue of GeoQ, our quarterly newsletter, and will be advertised via our blog and social media channels.

Please submit your entries in jpg or pdf format to Science Communications Fellow Edvard Glücksman by November 16. Shortly thereafter, the winner will be announced here on our blog and across our social media channels.

You can find plenty of hints and tips about how to design a perfect infographic using social media related websites, including Search Engine Watch, Infographics Archive, or at Mashable.  Information about the EGU, including its structure, publications, and outreach activities can be found on our official website.

The EGU reserves the right to disseminate all submissions freely under a Creative Commons License.

If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to email Edvard.

An infographic explaining infographics! (source: InfographicLabs)

International Innovation is a global dissemination publication that provides access to interviews, content and presentations for the wider scientific, technology and research communities. The magazine has, on various occasions, interviewed EGU personalities such as Ulrich Pöschl (Publications Committee Chair), a few division presidents and, most recently, EGU’s Executive Secretary, Philippe Courtial. Some of these EGU-related interviews are now available online.

• Interview with Gert-Jan Reichard: “Biogeology has emerged over the past decade as one of the most important fields within the geosciences. Dr Gert-Jan Reichart, Division President of Biogeosciences at the European Geosciences Union offers his insight into the environmental challenges we face and how this research area is striving to address them”
• Interview with Philippe Courtial: “Executive Secretary of the EGU, Dr Philippe Courtial, details the work of the Union in assisting scientists and improving the availability of accurate scientific data”
• Interview with Michael Kühn: “Boldly trying to push science for solutions to solve the energy problems of tomorrow, Michael Kühn [EGU Division President of Energy, Resources and the Environment] is studying new approaches where renewables play a vital role”
• Interview with Ulrich Pöschl: “The European Geosciences Union (EGU) is the world leader in interactive open access publishing and public peer review. We speak exclusively to Dr Ulrich Pöschl, the EGU Chair of Publication Committee, about the important work being done in the pursuit of knowledge sharing in the geosciences”
• Interview with Denis-Didier Rousseau: “President of the European Geosciences Union, Division on Climate: Past, Present and Future, provides an insight into the ever expanding remit of this branch of the EGU”

(A few of these texts have also been reproduced with permission in GeoQ, the quarterly newsletter of the European Geosciences Union.)