This is quite an interesting, and detailed, post about science communication, focusing mainly on climate science. It makes some interesting points about the difficulties in communicating this complex and contentious topic. Probably understandably, it doesn’t really provide any clear answers as to how to communicate this topic more effectively, but I do agree with the message in the last paragraph – using humour, being more personable, and using clear and effective imagery will certainly help.
Why is science communication hard? Why don’t people blindly accept what scientists tell them? In a time when 97% of climate scientists agree about human-caused climate change, why do some people still think that a single cold winter disproves global warming? Is it because scientists are stuffy academics, tight in their ivory tower? Because scientists aren’t very good at disseminating and knowledge and communicating information? Or because information is not available in an accessible, engaging format, with key data in pay-walled publications?
Scientific consensus, public scepticism
Science communication has a long history, and the British Association for the Advancement of Science was established way back in 1831. Yet today, despite an abundance of scientific information being readily available, climate change remains a confusing subject for many. While it appears that, in Britain, a majority of people believe…
View original post 2,872 more words