Scientific Communication Techniques

🌍 Ten Years After Paris: is the Climate Crisis a Disinformation Crisis? In 2015, the world made a historic promise: to keep global warming well below 2°C, and ideally below 1.5°C. We committed to major emission cuts by 2030, and net-zero by 2050. The Paris Agreement marked a new era of global climate cooperation. But ten years on, we're still struggling with cooperation while the World Meteorological Organization tells us that the Earth’s average temperature exceeded 1.5°C over a 12-month period (Feb 2023–Jan 2024) for the first time. Why? 🔍 A groundbreaking new study, led by 14 researchers for the International Panel on the Information Environment, reviewed 300 studies from 2015–2025. The findings are alarming: powerful interests – fossil fuel companies, populist parties, even some governments – are systematically spreading misleading narratives to delay climate action. 🧠 Misinformation isn't just about denying climate change. It’s now about strategic skepticism – minimizing the threat, casting doubt on science-based solutions, and greenwashing unsustainable practices. 📺 This disinformation flows through social media, news outlets, corporate reports, and even policy briefings. It targets all of us – but especially policymakers, where it can shape laws and delay critical decisions. 💡 So what can we do? 1️⃣ Legislate for transparency and integrity in climate communication. 2️⃣ Hold greenwashers accountable through legal action. 3️⃣ Build global coalitions of civil society, science, and public institutions. 4️⃣ Invest in climate and media literacy for both citizens and leaders. 5️⃣ Amplify voices from underrepresented regions – like Africa – where more research is urgently needed. We must protect not only the planet’s climate, but the integrity of climate information. 🔗 Read more on how disinformation is undermining climate progress – and what we can do about it: https://lnkd.in/eDN9hKAJ 🕰️ The window is small. But with truth, science, and collective action, we can still turn the tide.

“Our messaging is not working” Enrique Ortiz, a veteran conservationist and founding member of the Andes Amazon Fund, has spent decades translating the complexities of ecosystems into action. But in his recent commentary for Mongabay, he issues a striking critique—not of science itself, but of how it’s conveyed. “Facts are not the most important part,” Ortiz writes. “The current narrative needs a re-thinking.” That rethinking, he argues, begins not with more data, but with deeper insight into how people process information, make decisions, and respond emotionally to the world around them. Ortiz’s concern is not that people are unaware of climate change. In fact, the majority of the global population acknowledges it. But many remain unmoved, caught in a web of abstract language, ideological filters, and emotional distance. Scientific accuracy, while essential, often falters in the face of cognitive and cultural barriers. Ortiz points to the findings of cognitive scientists and neuroscientists: facts rarely shift belief systems. Instead, people gravitate toward stories, experiences, and social cues. “When facing uncertainty,” he notes, “humans make decisions that are satisfactory, rather than optimal.” This disconnect, Ortiz argues, is especially clear in environmental communication. Words like “rewilding,” “green,” or “ecological” may have once inspired clarity, but have since become muddled through overuse or conflicting interpretations. Worse, they sometimes trigger skepticism or backlash. In this fog of abstraction, the human connection is lost. What’s needed, Ortiz suggests, is a new narrative strategy—one that harnesses the emotional power of stories and speaks to how people actually think and feel. He draws from his own experience as an educator: while his lectures on plant-animal interactions faded from memory, it was the stories that lingered. This phenomenon, known as “narrative transportation,” isn’t mere sentimentality. It’s a neurological reality that helps ideas stick—and decisions shift. Rather than continuing to warn of catastrophe, Ortiz believes we should share stories of adaptation and resilience. From Andean farmers modifying how they grow quinoa and potatoes, to everyday consumers making environmentally conscious choices, these narratives offer agency and hope. They bridge divides and foster shared values. “Our messaging is not working,” Ortiz writes bluntly. “We need a revolution in narratives—and in how we tell them.” That revolution may begin not in the lab or the newsroom, but in the quiet space where empathy meets understanding—and where change can finally take root. 📰 His piece: https://lnkd.in/gmrWBcc5 📸 Hoatzin. My photo.

The big mistake in climate communication – and why half the population never even hears the message. In my feeds, climate and transition are often discussed as if the problem were information. As if more reports, more charts, or louder warnings would make people change their behaviour - if only we communicated them more clearly. That doesn’t seem to work. Instead, polarization grows. What if climate communication only reaches half of humanity? In my exploration of the ”ancient group” and our different cognitive orientations, it’s becoming clear that “climate denial” doesn’t necessarily come from unwillingness. Our nervous systems are simply calibrated in different ways. Some are attuned to concrete threats, social stability, and the here-and-now - not to abstract, systemic, long-term risks. That, to me, is fascinating. In the early human group, there were always two core orientations: The open orientation focused on future, patterns, abstraction, change The social orientation focused on order, concrete reality, proximity, continuity Both were needed. Both were forms of intelligence. Both helped us survive. But in today’s society these two polarities have been pulled apart. Which means we often speak in a language only some people can hear. Others hear something entirely different - not a threat to the planet, but a threat to identity, security, and belonging. That’s why we can look at the same graphs and interpret them in completely different ways. And this, I think, is essential for the work ahead. To succeed with transition, climate communication can’t rely on facts alone. It has to find a better balance: between change and stability, abstraction and the concrete, global ethics and local identity, the future and the present, the open and the social. So the climate crisis isn’t only ecological. It’s also a communication crisis, an identity crisis, and perhaps at its core - a crisis of duality. And as long as climate communication keeps: - speaking in abstractions - triggering guilt - overlooking identity …we’ll miss the people who are currently doing their best to stabilise a world that feels overwhelmingly threatened. If we assume this is true (and the research supports it), then climate communication would need to: create safety before it calls for change include all our different perspectives build relationships, not just arguments make risks more tangible offer role, dignity, and meaning in the transition The more I read and reflect on the ancient group, the more convinced I am that we need to create spaces where different nervous systems, different polarities, and different forms of wisdom can form a whole again. Where everyone contributes something essential. Only then can the climate crisis become a shared reality, and only then can we act as the species we actually are - built for collaboration, not fragmentation. * This is from the work for my upcoming book The Starting Point. Follow and support the work - link in bio.

Maybe the problem isn’t climate denial. Maybe it’s climate messaging. We’ve been attempting to scare or shame people into caring, and it’s not effective. Is it time to completely rethink how we talk about climate and sustainability? We've spent years trying to influence people through fear, data, and moral urgency. The results? Mixed. If we want genuine buy-in, we need to be honest about what’s isn’t working. Here are seven messaging mistakes we keep repeating. 1. Leading with Guilt and Doom: "We're killing the planet!" doesn't inspire - it overwhelms. Guilt sparks awareness, but rarely leads to action. 2. Talking About “The Planet” Instead of People People don’t wake up thinking about biodiversity - they think about bills, housing, jobs. Make climate personal. What can THEY GAIN out of changing their behaviour? 3. Assuming Rational Facts Will Change Behavior: 1.5°C Warming Is Essential, But Not Sufficient. Facts Inform, but Emotions Drive Action. 4. Using Elite, exclusionary language jargon, such as “net zero” and “green premiums,” alienates the majority. Sustainability can’t sound like it’s just for experts or elites. 5. Neglecting economic and social equity when we assume everyone can afford an EV or solar system, we lose trust. Green should be accessible to everyone - not just the wealthy. 6. Framing Green as Restriction, Not Opportunity: Less driving, flying, consuming... Where’s the upside? A green transition should feel like a win: lower bills, warmer homes, and cleaner air. 7. Treating Climate Like a Separate Issue. Climate isn’t separate from the economy, housing, or healthcare - it is those things. When we silo it, we shrink its relevance. So, how do we change the story? ✅ Speak to lived realities. Discuss how green policies improve everyday life, including jobs, bills, housing, and health. ✅ Shift from sacrifice to solutions. Replace “cut back” with “get more” - resilience, savings, mobility, and wellbeing. ✅ Make it simple. Use plain, human language. Instead of “decarbonize the grid,” say “cleaner, cheaper energy in every home. Help people to measure their carbon footprint.” ✅ Center fairness easily. Ensure that the benefits of sustainability are accessible - especially to those who have been historically excluded. ✅ Embed climate into everything. Don’t treat it like a separate crusade - show how it strengthens the economy, creates jobs, and benefits communities. ✅ Gemify climate action ✅ Give intrinsic value to change of behaviour and reducing carbon footprint. 👉 Time to stop scaring people into action - and start inspiring them with what’s possible. What language has been proven to be effective for climate and sustainability? Let’s share notes. ♻️ Repost this to help spread the word, please! 👉 Follow Gilad Regev for more insights like this.

Why do so many communicators lose their audience? Often, it’s because we try to share everything. When communicating a complex project, whether it’s a new product feature, a design sprint, or a strategic pivot, we often see broadcasting ideas into the world as our goal. We want to show every wireframe, every debated nuance, and every data point we collected along the way. But our brains are not wired to absorb a stream of disconnected information. When we overwhelm our audience, we increase their cognitive load and quickly lose their attention. Our goal should be to make sure our audience understands. The antidote is structure. Structure acts as a psychological roadmap. It guides both the speaker and the listener through a clear, reasoned journey. On the Think Fast Talk Smart: The Podcast, I often talk about the importance of packaging ideas so they are easy to follow and easy to remember. One framework I often recommend for complex projects is what I call the 5P structure. It helps presenters walk their audience through a clear progression of ideas so the story behind the work is easy to understand. 1) Problem: Define the issue at hand 2) Process: Shaping your thinking 3) Proposal: Outlining the solution 4) Proof: Sharing the potential impact 5) Progress: Pointing forward Instead of overwhelming people with information, the structure guides them through the challenge you were solving, how you approached it, what you designed, the evidence behind it, and what comes next. When people can clearly follow the story, they are far more likely to trust the idea and help move it forward.

Many #datavisualization, #dashboard, and #datastorytelling mistakes can be traced back to this simple problem: taking a presenter rather than an audience perspective. 🙋🏻 When designing data charts 📊, are you designing them with the audience in mind? I’ve often found that data communicators expect their audience to see the data from their perspective without evaluating their visuals from the audience’s viewpoint. They assume that what works for them will also work for their audience. This approach can be a recipe for disaster if you don’t know your audience very well. Before rushing to present some data, you should learn as much about your audience as possible. 👉 Knowledge level: How familiar are they with the topic or data? 👉 Relevance: How relevant or meaningful is your data to them? 👉 Context: What background information or assumptions are they missing? 👉 Data literacy: Will they be able to make sense of your charts? Once you've gained this understanding, you can attempt to design the data charts in a way that makes the most sense for your audience. It's also valuable to ask for feedback from colleagues or audience members beforehand to test your approach and fix potential problems. A common excuse I hear from data professionals is that they don’t have time to tailor their content to each audience. While it’s true that you might not be able to do it all the time, it is crucial to do it as much as possible. If you don’t make time to take an audience-centric approach, you will continue to be “busy” without driving meaningful outcomes. This type of shortsighted mindset makes you vulnerable when leaders begin to question what value you’re providing. What has helped you maintain an audience-centric perspective when designing your data charts, dashboards, and data stories?

How should our leaders think about, and communicate extreme heat to us? Most people don't process heat as a climate fact; they process it as higher utility bills, disrupted routines, unsafe work conditions, and worry about vulnerable family members. We're not conveying a number, but addressing downstream problems with the most necessary inputs to our livelihoods - e.g. money, health, caregiving, transportation. In this article from Smart Cities Dive, Robyn Lawrence speaks with Miami-Dade County Mayor Daniella Levine Cava and Tucson Mayor Regina Romero who share lessons from a new Climate Mayors toolkit (done in partnership with Hazelwood Network and Switch 5) to help local leaders keep residents safe during dangerous heat. [Link in the comments] Here is what we'd recommend, and we're seeing mayors take this approach already: 1) Frame messaging around lived impacts, not climate science. Talk about heat in terms of higher utility bills, disrupted routines, and risks to vulnerable family members vs. focusing on the wrong things like temperature forecasts or abstract climate impacts. 2) Combine warnings with solutions, not just warnings. Easier said than done in some cases, but discussing tangible solutions like cooling centers, AC in public housing, shade infrastructure, etc. can help residents have something to act on, not just something to worry about. 3) Use data to target outreach. Analyze local data (like heat-related 911 calls) to find who isn't getting help and why, then direct cooling centers and door-to-door outreach to those specific areas. 4) Deliver the message through trusted messengers, in residents' own language. Faith leaders, community organizations, and bilingual outreach carry more weight than official channels alone, especially with immigrant and low-income communities. 5) Extend reach through cross-sector partnerships - e.g. work hand in hand with utilities, healthcare providers, weather services, and local media to make sure heat messaging shows up consistently across the systems residents already interact with.

It’s not just what you say that matters - it's how your audience is wired to interpret it. Social Judgment Theory (developed by Muzafer Sherif and Carl Hovland) helps us understand why certain messages resonate while others fall flat. → The Anchor Point: Your Audience's Core Beliefs Your audience’s core beliefs act as their personal anchors - deeply held convictions that are difficult to sway. Your goal is to: - Understand these anchor points. - Align your messages with where your audience stands. (See example below) → Latitude of Acceptance: The Sweet Spot Around these anchors is a range of ideas your audience is open to - this is the Latitude of Acceptance. Messages in this range are more likely to be welcomed or at least considered. Your goal is to: - Identify and explore ideas within this latitude. - Avoid pushing beyond what they’re willing to accept. (See example below) → Latitude of Non-Commitment: The Grey Area There’s a neutral zone - the Latitude of Non-Commitment - where your audience is indifferent or undecided. It’s the “meh” area where your message might not inspire action but doesn’t provoke resistance either. Your goal is to: - Gently guide your audience from this neutral zone toward your desired outcome. - Link neutral concepts back to their core beliefs. (See example below) → Latitude of Rejection: The No-Go Zone The Latitude of Rejection is where your message faces resistance or outright dismissal. Push too hard, and your audience will double down on their original beliefs. Your goal is to: - Approach with caution and find common ground. - Gradually shift perceptions by focusing on shared values. (See example below) → Ego Involvement: The Wild Card Ego involvement is the wild card. The more an issue is tied to someone’s identity, the narrower their Latitude of Acceptance becomes. This means crafting your message with extra care. Your goal is to: - Respect and acknowledge their self-concept. - Frame new ideas as enhancements, not challenges, to their identity. (See example below) So, how can you ensure your brand’s message resonates? Start by understanding where your audience’s anchor points are. 1. Anchor your content within your audience’s core beliefs. 2. Aim for the Latitude of Acceptance to gently nudge opinions. 3. Be aware of the Latitude of Non-Commitment as a space for subtle persuasion. 4. Avoid the Latitude of Rejection unless you're prepared for resistance. 5. Approach ego-involvement with care by framing your message as a way to enhance their identity, rather than challenge it. Effective branding isn’t about shouting louder - it’s about speaking in tune with how your audience naturally thinks and feels. When you align your message with Social Judgment Theory, you connect with them on a deeper level.

How do you talk about sustainability and climate issues in your company? If you’ve ever found yourself struggling to make sustainability resonate with your team, you’re not alone. At Microsoft, for example, they’ve found that speaking the right "language" makes all the difference. Being a tech company, their conversations around sustainability are deeply rooted in a quantitative, data-driven approach after all, they’re engineers at heart. They use the same principles that drive their technology to frame sustainability risks and opportunities. But what if your company isn’t full of engineers? Every organization speaks its internal language, whether that’s the analytical mindset of finance, the creativity of marketing, or the operations-driven approach of manufacturing. Tailoring sustainability messaging to align with these unique perspectives can bridge the gap, making it easier for employees to see how it connects to what they do every day. One thing is clear across all industries though: the language of science is essential. Whether you're talking to your marketing team, engineers, or executives, scientific facts are the backbone of any meaningful conversation about sustainability. Data on carbon footprints, climate risks, and environmental impacts provide a foundation everyone can work with. According to the IPCC, we need to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by 43% by 2030 to stay on track with climate goals numbers. Take Unilever, for example. They made sustainability a part of their company culture by translating climate goals into everyday actions for each department. Their marketing team talks about sustainable sourcing, while their R&D team focuses on lowering the carbon footprint of products. By embedding sustainability into every part of the business, Unilever is empowering all employees to contribute, leading to a 32% reduction in their environmental impact. Sustainability isn’t a one-size-fits-all conversation. But when you frame it in terms that make sense to your team, it becomes part of how your business thinks and operates every day. So, how will you start the conversation within your organization?

A #quantum journey doesn't always begin with a quantum computer.   I recently sat down with Jonathan Reichental, PhD at Forbes together with Julian van Velzen to discuss how organizations are really approaching quantum today. What we're seeing is that they tend to start in three places.   First, enterprises typically want to know where the technology genuinely stands beyond the hype or the dismissive claims (take your pick). And quantum isn't one thing. It's a wide range of technologies maturing at very different speeds. Some are ready. Many aren't. That's a nuance that many click-bait publications often gloss over, one way or the other.    Second, Post Quantum Cryptography (PQC), or the development of new encryption algorithms specifically tailored to resist quantum-empowered cyber attacks. The irony is that PQC isn't a quantum solution at all: it's how you protect today's encryption from tomorrow's quantum machines. But it's become a real entry point into quantum for many organizations. Assessing the risk builds the knowledge and urgency a broader quantum strategy will need. Banking, insurance and the public sector are already moving, because data harvested now can be decrypted later.   Third, quantum simulation or "quantum for science" as I call it. Modeling molecules and materials that are themselves quantum by nature. Paired with #AI, this is where the tangible promise sits: new or better materials, less or no corrosion, faster drug or protein discovery, etc…   So to sum up, our core belief is that quantum isn't a single technology arriving on a single date, and waiting out the uncertainty is the real mistake. The risk isn't moving too early: it's the long, costly catch-up that hits the unprepared tech leader.    Or said in another way: The quantum winners won't be the fastest. They'll be the ones who prepared earliest.   Full interview below, worth a read 👇 https://lnkd.in/eygXSY6x