1 00:00:00,666 --> 00:00:02,366 [Scott] Coming up on "Energy Switch," 2 00:00:02,366 --> 00:00:04,633 we'll hear from leading climate journalists. 3 00:00:04,633 --> 00:00:05,600 - We're often asked, 4 00:00:05,600 --> 00:00:08,100 "Well, are you biased against research 5 00:00:08,100 --> 00:00:12,133 that is saying that climate change isn't that serious?" 6 00:00:12,133 --> 00:00:13,533 Well, the answer is absolutely not. 7 00:00:13,533 --> 00:00:15,833 I mean, we're always eager to have research papers 8 00:00:15,833 --> 00:00:18,133 that are contrary to dominant narratives 9 00:00:18,133 --> 00:00:20,133 as long as they're interesting, important, 10 00:00:20,133 --> 00:00:22,033 and passed through a peer review process. 11 00:00:22,033 --> 00:00:25,166 - I think there is a sort of a storied myth 12 00:00:25,166 --> 00:00:26,700 of journalists who operate, 13 00:00:26,700 --> 00:00:29,300 just completely apart from their personal experience. 14 00:00:29,300 --> 00:00:30,366 And that's not real. 15 00:00:30,366 --> 00:00:32,600 You should acknowledge that we all are humans. 16 00:00:32,600 --> 00:00:36,500 At the same time, it's important to be able to separate that 17 00:00:36,500 --> 00:00:39,633 to some degree and really make sure that the work 18 00:00:39,633 --> 00:00:41,966 that you're doing is searching for truth. 19 00:00:41,966 --> 00:00:43,500 [Scott] Next on "Energy Switch," 20 00:00:43,500 --> 00:00:46,433 the challenges of communicating on climate change. 21 00:00:49,300 --> 00:00:50,600 [Narrator] Funding for "Energy Switch" 22 00:00:50,600 --> 00:00:53,466 was provided in part by, 23 00:00:53,466 --> 00:00:56,266 The University of Texas at Austin, 24 00:00:56,266 --> 00:00:58,666 leading research in energy and the environment 25 00:00:58,666 --> 00:01:00,533 for a better tomorrow. 26 00:01:00,533 --> 00:01:03,200 What starts here changes the world. 27 00:01:05,500 --> 00:01:06,766 [upbeat music] 28 00:01:06,766 --> 00:01:07,933 - I'm Scott Tinker, 29 00:01:07,933 --> 00:01:10,333 and I'm an energy scientist. 30 00:01:10,333 --> 00:01:11,733 I work in the field, 31 00:01:11,733 --> 00:01:12,866 lead research, 32 00:01:12,866 --> 00:01:14,600 speak around the world, 33 00:01:14,600 --> 00:01:15,700 write articles, 34 00:01:15,700 --> 00:01:18,566 and make films about energy. 35 00:01:18,566 --> 00:01:20,900 This show brings together leading experts 36 00:01:20,900 --> 00:01:23,866 on vital topics in energy and climate. 37 00:01:24,433 --> 00:01:26,200 They may have different perspectives, 38 00:01:26,200 --> 00:01:29,166 but my goal is to learn, and illuminate, 39 00:01:29,166 --> 00:01:32,366 and bring diverging views together towards solutions. 40 00:01:33,333 --> 00:01:35,333 Welcome to the "Energy Switch." 41 00:01:36,266 --> 00:01:38,200 Climate science is complex, 42 00:01:38,200 --> 00:01:40,000 and, like every other field, 43 00:01:40,000 --> 00:01:41,766 it's full of uncertainties. 44 00:01:41,766 --> 00:01:43,833 That's what excites scientists, 45 00:01:43,833 --> 00:01:46,866 their research papers explore the nuances. 46 00:01:46,866 --> 00:01:49,566 While general audiences want conclusions, 47 00:01:49,566 --> 00:01:51,700 sometimes scientists build studies 48 00:01:51,700 --> 00:01:54,400 on extreme or unlikely climate scenarios 49 00:01:54,400 --> 00:01:57,033 to make findings easier to discern. 50 00:01:57,033 --> 00:01:59,333 When translated to mainstream reporting, 51 00:01:59,333 --> 00:02:02,133 those are sometimes confused with reality. 52 00:02:02,133 --> 00:02:03,400 We'll hear from experts 53 00:02:03,400 --> 00:02:06,333 on the challenges of communicating on climate. 54 00:02:06,333 --> 00:02:09,433 Michael White is a senior editor in charge of climate 55 00:02:09,433 --> 00:02:12,233 and the oceans for the science journal, Nature, 56 00:02:12,233 --> 00:02:14,733 which publishes leading edge research papers 57 00:02:14,733 --> 00:02:16,300 for the scientific community. 58 00:02:16,733 --> 00:02:18,966 Justin Worland is the senior correspondent 59 00:02:18,966 --> 00:02:20,800 for climate for "Time Magazine" 60 00:02:20,800 --> 00:02:22,566 and the Visiting Fellow in Journalism 61 00:02:22,566 --> 00:02:26,133 at the University of Chicago's Energy Policy Institute. 62 00:02:26,133 --> 00:02:28,266 On this episode of "Energy Switch," 63 00:02:28,266 --> 00:02:30,900 we'll look at the field of climate journalism. 64 00:02:32,000 --> 00:02:32,966 Welcome. 65 00:02:32,966 --> 00:02:34,800 Sure appreciate you taking the time today 66 00:02:34,800 --> 00:02:37,566 and look forward to this dialogue 67 00:02:37,566 --> 00:02:40,266 on journalism and climate. 68 00:02:40,266 --> 00:02:42,266 We always start with the big picture, 69 00:02:42,266 --> 00:02:43,966 which is why would our listeners, 70 00:02:43,966 --> 00:02:46,233 why would our viewers even care? 71 00:02:46,233 --> 00:02:49,333 - I think you could look at it in at least two ways. 72 00:02:49,333 --> 00:02:51,133 We are causing climate change 73 00:02:51,133 --> 00:02:52,666 and that there are clear solutions 74 00:02:52,666 --> 00:02:55,166 that are within our grasp. 75 00:02:55,166 --> 00:02:56,466 And the way I think about it now 76 00:02:56,466 --> 00:02:59,166 is instead of a knowledge deficit, 77 00:02:59,166 --> 00:03:01,833 we should be thinking about an empathy gap. 78 00:03:01,833 --> 00:03:03,133 Scientists are not trained 79 00:03:03,133 --> 00:03:05,866 in how to communicate their findings, 80 00:03:05,866 --> 00:03:07,666 which are often highly nuanced and complicated 81 00:03:07,666 --> 00:03:09,533 and have a lot of uncertainties 82 00:03:09,533 --> 00:03:12,133 to people whose lives might actually be affected 83 00:03:12,133 --> 00:03:14,333 by these changes. 84 00:03:14,333 --> 00:03:15,633 - That's a good way to frame it. 85 00:03:15,633 --> 00:03:17,300 - Justin? - I mean, I agree with that. 86 00:03:17,300 --> 00:03:20,966 I guess I would say climate change is a huge problem. 87 00:03:20,966 --> 00:03:23,966 People do not understand the scale of the problem 88 00:03:23,966 --> 00:03:26,500 or perhaps the nuances of the problem. 89 00:03:26,500 --> 00:03:28,700 And I think the nuances are important. 90 00:03:28,700 --> 00:03:30,966 - How do journals like Nature 91 00:03:30,966 --> 00:03:33,333 actually evaluate the research project? 92 00:03:33,333 --> 00:03:35,566 What's your protocol, if you will? 93 00:03:35,566 --> 00:03:37,466 - So, I think what people may not realize 94 00:03:37,466 --> 00:03:39,066 about many journals, 95 00:03:39,066 --> 00:03:42,300 but especially journals like Science, Nature, and Cell, 96 00:03:42,300 --> 00:03:44,566 is how long the process is. 97 00:03:44,566 --> 00:03:48,233 So scientists are submitting papers to me now, 98 00:03:48,233 --> 00:03:51,300 particularly in paleoclimate, old climate science, 99 00:03:51,300 --> 00:03:54,133 where the cores were taken 15, 20 years ago. 100 00:03:54,133 --> 00:03:57,233 And I have about roughly a week or so 101 00:03:57,233 --> 00:04:00,800 to evaluate the paper in terms of if the paper is true, 102 00:04:00,800 --> 00:04:03,033 would it be interesting for our audience? 103 00:04:03,033 --> 00:04:04,933 And Nature is a wide audience journal. 104 00:04:04,933 --> 00:04:07,133 And it needs to have a high level of novelty. 105 00:04:07,133 --> 00:04:09,200 It can't be a repetition 106 00:04:09,200 --> 00:04:12,066 of a different technique on the same topic. 107 00:04:12,066 --> 00:04:13,066 So then the paper comes in 108 00:04:13,066 --> 00:04:15,266 and I tend to decline without review, 109 00:04:15,266 --> 00:04:18,033 roughly 70% of all submissions. 110 00:04:18,033 --> 00:04:18,900 - Wow. 111 00:04:18,900 --> 00:04:21,633 - Then for the 30% that go to review, 112 00:04:21,633 --> 00:04:23,966 what I do is look at the paper and say, 113 00:04:23,966 --> 00:04:25,133 "Oh, okay, I have a paper. 114 00:04:25,133 --> 00:04:29,433 It's a straightforward analysis of physical oceanography. 115 00:04:29,433 --> 00:04:32,266 I'll send that paper to two independent scientists." 116 00:04:32,266 --> 00:04:35,600 Then the paper is read and evaluated by those scientists 117 00:04:35,600 --> 00:04:37,533 primarily for technical merit. 118 00:04:37,533 --> 00:04:40,800 And if they say, "We see these issues with the paper," 119 00:04:40,800 --> 00:04:42,866 then it'll go back to the editors 120 00:04:42,866 --> 00:04:45,400 and we'll evaluate that whole set of feedback. 121 00:04:45,400 --> 00:04:47,133 And then we'll tell the authors, 122 00:04:47,133 --> 00:04:48,566 "Well, you know, we're still interested, 123 00:04:48,566 --> 00:04:51,066 but we need to see revisions in all these points." 124 00:04:51,066 --> 00:04:52,766 And this process gets iterated 125 00:04:52,766 --> 00:04:56,233 potentially up to four or five times. 126 00:04:56,233 --> 00:04:57,800 Our position is that we want to try 127 00:04:57,800 --> 00:04:59,800 and publish papers that are correct. 128 00:04:59,800 --> 00:05:01,933 So the process can take anywhere 129 00:05:01,933 --> 00:05:06,100 from in the most lightning fast time, one month 130 00:05:06,100 --> 00:05:07,533 up to multiple years. - Right. 131 00:05:07,533 --> 00:05:09,466 - And then the press team at Nature, 132 00:05:09,466 --> 00:05:13,033 which is an independent team, writes a short press release 133 00:05:13,033 --> 00:05:15,833 for every single paper in Nature. 134 00:05:15,833 --> 00:05:17,800 And the idea there is that 135 00:05:17,800 --> 00:05:19,200 this gives the journalist time 136 00:05:19,200 --> 00:05:21,366 to talk to independent scientists in the field, 137 00:05:21,366 --> 00:05:22,833 get independent opinions, 138 00:05:22,833 --> 00:05:25,600 talk to that author, for example, 139 00:05:25,600 --> 00:05:26,766 all in advance of the day 140 00:05:26,766 --> 00:05:28,300 that the paper is actually published. 141 00:05:28,300 --> 00:05:29,700 [Scott] So it's kind of firewalled until then, or... 142 00:05:29,700 --> 00:05:30,766 - Yes, exactly. 143 00:05:30,766 --> 00:05:32,466 But publication is not the end point. 144 00:05:32,466 --> 00:05:35,600 There are mechanisms for post publication review. 145 00:05:35,600 --> 00:05:39,133 And in cases where there are research flaws, 146 00:05:39,133 --> 00:05:42,700 either intentionally or not, there are cases of clear fraud, 147 00:05:42,700 --> 00:05:44,333 then the paper can be retracted. 148 00:05:44,333 --> 00:05:45,866 - Interesting. 149 00:05:45,866 --> 00:05:47,500 Thoughts on any of this? 150 00:05:47,500 --> 00:05:48,866 - Well, first I would say that was 151 00:05:48,866 --> 00:05:50,600 really interesting insight. 152 00:05:50,600 --> 00:05:52,100 I resonated in some ways with what you said. 153 00:05:52,100 --> 00:05:54,433 I mean, you're talking to a wide audience 154 00:05:54,433 --> 00:05:55,666 within the scientific community 155 00:05:55,666 --> 00:05:58,800 and we're trying to do the same speaking to a wide audience 156 00:05:58,800 --> 00:06:02,266 that is interested in a bunch of different issues 157 00:06:02,266 --> 00:06:04,766 and how do we make climate one of those issues. 158 00:06:04,766 --> 00:06:07,533 And so, I mean, I think a lot of that process 159 00:06:07,533 --> 00:06:09,900 is similar to my process 160 00:06:09,900 --> 00:06:13,366 and just trying to pick stories to pick research 161 00:06:13,366 --> 00:06:18,733 to pick threads that are going to have broad appeal. 162 00:06:18,733 --> 00:06:21,166 - How informed are most climate journalists? 163 00:06:21,166 --> 00:06:22,933 Do they have the background? 164 00:06:22,933 --> 00:06:24,566 This is technical stuff. 165 00:06:24,566 --> 00:06:28,866 Are we even able to communicate this in ways that? 166 00:06:28,866 --> 00:06:30,200 - It's a good question. 167 00:06:30,200 --> 00:06:32,700 I mean, obviously every journalist is different. 168 00:06:32,700 --> 00:06:37,166 It is a diverse set of backgrounds and experiences 169 00:06:37,166 --> 00:06:39,100 and time in the field. 170 00:06:39,100 --> 00:06:43,933 The idea is that journalists should be able to jump 171 00:06:43,933 --> 00:06:45,600 to different things, right? 172 00:06:45,600 --> 00:06:47,933 So a lot of people will spend their careers 173 00:06:47,933 --> 00:06:49,066 doing a beat for five years 174 00:06:49,066 --> 00:06:51,733 and just sort of cycling through. 175 00:06:51,733 --> 00:06:54,733 Climate really doesn't lend itself to that. 176 00:06:54,733 --> 00:06:57,233 It's just the learning curve is too steep. 177 00:06:57,233 --> 00:06:59,666 And so I think it poses a big challenge 178 00:06:59,666 --> 00:07:03,433 for journalism to figure out as a institution, 179 00:07:03,433 --> 00:07:08,800 how do you adjust to have a deep enough bench 180 00:07:08,800 --> 00:07:12,500 to really understand, engage in these issues. 181 00:07:12,500 --> 00:07:13,900 - Look, I find journalists to be 182 00:07:13,900 --> 00:07:15,800 some of the most informed people I know, 183 00:07:15,800 --> 00:07:17,600 is really broadly educated. 184 00:07:17,600 --> 00:07:18,766 'Cause you have to be. 185 00:07:18,766 --> 00:07:20,500 How about on the editorial side? 186 00:07:20,500 --> 00:07:23,466 Are you seeing similar challenges, Mike, with that? 187 00:07:23,466 --> 00:07:26,266 - I came into Nature in 2008. 188 00:07:26,266 --> 00:07:27,966 I was generally informed about climate, 189 00:07:27,966 --> 00:07:29,666 but every day for the first year, 190 00:07:29,666 --> 00:07:32,966 there would be a topic I had literally never heard of. 191 00:07:32,966 --> 00:07:34,400 - Yeah. - And then you have... 192 00:07:34,400 --> 00:07:35,666 I don't know what it's like for you, 193 00:07:35,666 --> 00:07:37,300 but I would have sort of a day 194 00:07:37,300 --> 00:07:38,666 to come up to speed on these topics 195 00:07:38,666 --> 00:07:40,666 and to reach editorial decisions. 196 00:07:40,666 --> 00:07:43,733 Now for most papers, I will know within 10 minutes 197 00:07:43,733 --> 00:07:45,966 whether it's a potential paper for us or not. 198 00:07:45,966 --> 00:07:48,266 - Interesting. 199 00:07:48,266 --> 00:07:49,733 We all have biases. 200 00:07:49,733 --> 00:07:50,600 I'm a scientist, 201 00:07:50,600 --> 00:07:52,600 I have my own biases. 202 00:07:52,600 --> 00:07:54,100 How does that influence your reporting? 203 00:07:54,100 --> 00:07:57,833 How do you keep that from influencing your reporting? 204 00:07:57,833 --> 00:08:01,233 - You know, I think there is a sort of a storied myth 205 00:08:01,233 --> 00:08:02,866 of journalists who operate, 206 00:08:02,866 --> 00:08:05,333 just completely apart from their personal experience. 207 00:08:05,333 --> 00:08:06,900 And that's not real. 208 00:08:06,900 --> 00:08:09,233 We should acknowledge that we all are humans. 209 00:08:09,233 --> 00:08:11,000 And in some ways that can be helpful. 210 00:08:11,000 --> 00:08:13,733 It can help figure out what questions to ask 211 00:08:13,733 --> 00:08:16,666 or give a certain curiosity about things 212 00:08:16,666 --> 00:08:19,366 that other people might not have. 213 00:08:19,366 --> 00:08:22,733 At the same time, it's important to be able to separate 214 00:08:22,733 --> 00:08:24,566 that to some degree 215 00:08:24,566 --> 00:08:26,366 and really make sure that the work 216 00:08:26,366 --> 00:08:28,733 that you're doing is searching for truth, right? 217 00:08:28,733 --> 00:08:33,000 Truth that is apart from your own personal experience 218 00:08:33,000 --> 00:08:34,333 or your own personal perspective. 219 00:08:34,333 --> 00:08:36,200 - Yeah, interesting. 220 00:08:36,200 --> 00:08:37,633 Your thoughts on that, Mike? 221 00:08:37,633 --> 00:08:40,633 - So whenever I go to do a visit to a group of scientists, 222 00:08:40,633 --> 00:08:42,633 I'm almost always asked, 223 00:08:42,633 --> 00:08:44,966 "Are you biased against certain lines of research 224 00:08:44,966 --> 00:08:48,033 or certain lines of work or countries or individuals?" 225 00:08:48,033 --> 00:08:49,366 [Scott] You're asked that by the scientists. 226 00:08:49,366 --> 00:08:50,766 - Yes, absolutely. 227 00:08:50,766 --> 00:08:52,866 And the response I gave was kind of two-part, 228 00:08:52,866 --> 00:08:55,066 one of them is, "Well, the problem with having 229 00:08:55,066 --> 00:08:56,366 an unconscious bias 230 00:08:56,366 --> 00:08:58,200 is that you don't know that you have it, of course, 231 00:08:58,200 --> 00:08:59,500 because it's unconscious." 232 00:08:59,500 --> 00:09:02,366 But if you give yourself time for introspection 233 00:09:02,366 --> 00:09:04,600 and thought on given topics and decisions, 234 00:09:04,600 --> 00:09:05,933 you can recognize that and say, 235 00:09:05,933 --> 00:09:07,533 "Well, am I making this decision 236 00:09:07,533 --> 00:09:11,700 because this is an uninteresting paper for Nature 237 00:09:11,700 --> 00:09:14,600 or is it because it's from an African scientist 238 00:09:14,600 --> 00:09:17,133 and we get almost no submissions from Africa?" 239 00:09:17,133 --> 00:09:18,700 Those are very different decisions to make 240 00:09:18,700 --> 00:09:20,733 and you should be aware of them and think about them. 241 00:09:20,733 --> 00:09:23,966 We're often asked, "Well, are you biased against research 242 00:09:23,966 --> 00:09:28,866 that is saying that climate change isn't that serious?" 243 00:09:28,866 --> 00:09:30,400 Well, the answer is absolutely not. 244 00:09:30,400 --> 00:09:32,900 I mean, we're always eager to have research papers 245 00:09:32,900 --> 00:09:34,800 that are contrary to dominant narratives 246 00:09:34,800 --> 00:09:37,033 as long as they're interesting, important, 247 00:09:37,033 --> 00:09:38,900 and passed through a peer review process. 248 00:09:38,900 --> 00:09:42,066 And one classic example for me as an editor 249 00:09:42,066 --> 00:09:44,100 is a paper I handled many years ago, 250 00:09:44,100 --> 00:09:47,900 and the title was something like No Trend in Global Drought 251 00:09:47,900 --> 00:09:50,466 Over the Past 50 Years. 252 00:09:50,466 --> 00:09:52,966 But over this five decade study period, 253 00:09:52,966 --> 00:09:56,300 they couldn't detect any trend in global drought. 254 00:09:56,300 --> 00:09:57,800 Not that there aren't regional changes, 255 00:09:57,800 --> 00:10:00,133 but as an entire planetary drought system, 256 00:10:00,133 --> 00:10:02,533 they saw no change. 257 00:10:02,533 --> 00:10:03,900 And it isn't the kind of thing 258 00:10:03,900 --> 00:10:08,033 that would necessarily have an immediate media appeal, 259 00:10:08,033 --> 00:10:09,800 'cause it is a negative story in that sense. 260 00:10:09,800 --> 00:10:12,366 Negative meaning a finding of no change. 261 00:10:12,366 --> 00:10:13,366 - Right. 262 00:10:13,366 --> 00:10:14,966 - But hugely important given the importance 263 00:10:14,966 --> 00:10:16,966 of the topic itself. 264 00:10:16,966 --> 00:10:19,966 And I think just an example of how journals like Nature 265 00:10:19,966 --> 00:10:21,700 don't have a predefined narrative 266 00:10:21,700 --> 00:10:24,800 of what we want to publish to support the idea 267 00:10:24,800 --> 00:10:27,800 that climate change is taking place uniformly 268 00:10:27,800 --> 00:10:29,766 in all areas at all times. 269 00:10:29,766 --> 00:10:30,633 - Right. 270 00:10:30,633 --> 00:10:33,766 If we were to hear the same story 271 00:10:33,766 --> 00:10:35,966 through the lens of different journalists, 272 00:10:35,966 --> 00:10:41,533 say Time, Newsweek, The Economist, Mother Jones. 273 00:10:41,533 --> 00:10:42,466 - Yeah. 274 00:10:42,466 --> 00:10:44,200 - They're very different takes on that. 275 00:10:44,200 --> 00:10:48,600 Is that the newspaper or magazine driving that 276 00:10:48,600 --> 00:10:50,933 or is that the journalist or? 277 00:10:50,933 --> 00:10:52,133 - No, I see what you're saying. 278 00:10:52,133 --> 00:10:54,700 I mean, I wrote a story several years ago 279 00:10:54,700 --> 00:10:57,566 about the narrowing of uncertainty 280 00:10:57,566 --> 00:11:01,866 about outcomes for a particular climate phenomenon. 281 00:11:01,866 --> 00:11:06,000 And I got a bunch of negative feedback from people saying, 282 00:11:06,000 --> 00:11:07,433 this makes it look like 283 00:11:07,433 --> 00:11:11,166 climate science is a bunch of nonsense 284 00:11:11,166 --> 00:11:13,166 because you're talking about the uncertainties 285 00:11:13,166 --> 00:11:14,300 within climate science. 286 00:11:14,300 --> 00:11:16,766 And I said, "Well, that's-" 287 00:11:16,766 --> 00:11:18,633 - That's 'cause it exists. - That's 'cause it exists. 288 00:11:18,633 --> 00:11:20,800 And that's how we talk about things that are real, 289 00:11:20,800 --> 00:11:23,366 nuanced, honest way. 290 00:11:23,366 --> 00:11:26,033 So that's just one anecdote, 291 00:11:26,033 --> 00:11:28,633 whether we would pick up that particular story 292 00:11:28,633 --> 00:11:33,533 about droughts that you're alluding to. 293 00:11:33,533 --> 00:11:34,866 I mean, I don't know. 294 00:11:34,866 --> 00:11:37,633 I don't think we would shy away from it. 295 00:11:37,633 --> 00:11:39,200 I do know that if we didn't cover it, 296 00:11:39,200 --> 00:11:42,533 we would get some negative feedback for sure, for sure. 297 00:11:42,533 --> 00:11:44,333 - Here's one, I mean, this is kind of real. 298 00:11:44,333 --> 00:11:46,600 We've had climate scientists on this show, 299 00:11:46,600 --> 00:11:50,266 and they've said RCP 8.5. 300 00:11:50,266 --> 00:11:52,933 This is one of the scenarios. 301 00:11:52,933 --> 00:11:55,166 It's just really unlikely to happen. 302 00:11:55,166 --> 00:11:57,800 Not impossible. 303 00:11:57,800 --> 00:12:02,666 But we still continue to see papers on this. 304 00:12:02,666 --> 00:12:04,100 Am I out to lunch here? 305 00:12:04,100 --> 00:12:05,700 That's what I've heard. 306 00:12:05,700 --> 00:12:07,433 Are we? - No, you're absolutely right. 307 00:12:07,433 --> 00:12:09,166 So the question then editorially is, 308 00:12:09,166 --> 00:12:11,833 what did we do with the paper if it comes in 309 00:12:11,833 --> 00:12:14,100 and it reports some remarkable finding 310 00:12:14,100 --> 00:12:18,333 for what are now called SSP585 311 00:12:18,333 --> 00:12:23,233 or shared socioeconomic pathways in scenario five, 312 00:12:23,233 --> 00:12:24,866 which is burned it all. 313 00:12:24,866 --> 00:12:26,266 Like what do we do with that? 314 00:12:26,266 --> 00:12:28,866 It could be quite interesting editorially, 315 00:12:28,866 --> 00:12:30,566 but is it realistic? 316 00:12:30,566 --> 00:12:31,866 And if it's not realistic, 317 00:12:31,866 --> 00:12:34,233 should we even publish those kind of papers? 318 00:12:34,233 --> 00:12:35,833 Because it can create, 319 00:12:35,833 --> 00:12:37,833 really, it's some kind of mass hysteria about the way 320 00:12:37,833 --> 00:12:39,733 that climate will change in the future. 321 00:12:39,733 --> 00:12:42,100 We just had a paper looking at the future recurrence 322 00:12:42,100 --> 00:12:45,033 of multi-year La Ninas. 323 00:12:45,033 --> 00:12:47,200 So the reverse part of the El Nino, 324 00:12:47,200 --> 00:12:49,366 the cool part of the system. 325 00:12:49,366 --> 00:12:54,366 And the authors came in with an RCP or SSP 8.5 submission, 326 00:12:54,366 --> 00:12:57,033 and they had done some work on the other SSPs, 327 00:12:57,033 --> 00:12:58,333 but then editorially we said, 328 00:12:58,333 --> 00:13:00,166 "Look, that needs to be front and center 329 00:13:00,166 --> 00:13:01,400 in the first paragraph. 330 00:13:01,400 --> 00:13:04,466 We need to clearly signpost to the readers 331 00:13:04,466 --> 00:13:06,233 that this is a range of possibilities, 332 00:13:06,233 --> 00:13:09,133 that the high end is a high end. 333 00:13:09,133 --> 00:13:11,500 It should never be called business as usual." 334 00:13:11,500 --> 00:13:12,466 - Right. 335 00:13:12,466 --> 00:13:13,833 [Mike] It's an extreme scenario. 336 00:13:13,833 --> 00:13:17,733 - Interesting, and so does "Time Magazine" 337 00:13:17,733 --> 00:13:20,400 still look for the more dramatic things 338 00:13:20,400 --> 00:13:23,500 because that's what your readers want. 339 00:13:23,500 --> 00:13:24,966 - I do think that there can be value 340 00:13:24,966 --> 00:13:29,933 to scenarios that are looking at extremes. 341 00:13:29,933 --> 00:13:33,166 I think to Mike's point, signpost, right? 342 00:13:33,166 --> 00:13:38,466 If you're going to write about an RCPA 0.5 study, 343 00:13:38,466 --> 00:13:42,066 you gotta be very clear that this is an extreme scenario. 344 00:13:42,066 --> 00:13:45,566 I think the sort of bigger perspective that I try to bring, 345 00:13:45,566 --> 00:13:47,666 and I think Time tries to bring is, 346 00:13:47,666 --> 00:13:51,466 let's think about climate less as the most extreme possibility, 347 00:13:51,466 --> 00:13:53,333 which is maybe a tail-end risk. 348 00:13:53,333 --> 00:13:55,633 And let's not look at the other tail, 349 00:13:55,633 --> 00:13:58,100 which might suggest that this is all overblown. 350 00:13:58,100 --> 00:14:00,266 Let's look at the sort of base case 351 00:14:00,266 --> 00:14:01,966 and the most likely scenario. 352 00:14:01,966 --> 00:14:03,566 And you still have a lot of really compelling 353 00:14:03,566 --> 00:14:04,800 storytelling there. 354 00:14:04,800 --> 00:14:05,933 [Scott] Right. 355 00:14:05,933 --> 00:14:09,300 I've written some stuff and I'll put a title on it. 356 00:14:09,300 --> 00:14:11,333 It's never the title it comes out with, 357 00:14:11,333 --> 00:14:12,700 there's some other title. 358 00:14:12,700 --> 00:14:14,200 And then there's the content 359 00:14:14,200 --> 00:14:18,200 and the headline is almost opposite of this three sentence, 360 00:14:18,200 --> 00:14:20,133 the actual really important part of the story 361 00:14:20,133 --> 00:14:21,166 that's sitting in there 362 00:14:21,166 --> 00:14:22,533 and it's kind of buried here near the bottom. 363 00:14:22,533 --> 00:14:23,400 Are you seeing that? 364 00:14:23,400 --> 00:14:25,900 How do you manage that, Justin? 365 00:14:25,900 --> 00:14:29,133 - I mean, I do think you see this widely 366 00:14:29,133 --> 00:14:32,033 where there's a gap between what the story says 367 00:14:32,033 --> 00:14:33,166 and what the headline says. 368 00:14:33,166 --> 00:14:36,233 And that is an attempt to drive, 369 00:14:36,233 --> 00:14:38,066 you know, clicks to drive people to the story. 370 00:14:38,066 --> 00:14:39,166 [Scott] Right. 371 00:14:39,166 --> 00:14:42,466 - I think it isn't necessarily bad 372 00:14:42,466 --> 00:14:44,866 to want people to read your stories. 373 00:14:44,866 --> 00:14:45,866 - Right. 374 00:14:45,866 --> 00:14:47,666 - Can you find a way to get them to read it 375 00:14:47,666 --> 00:14:49,900 by doing a good story, right, 376 00:14:49,900 --> 00:14:52,533 rather than doing something that's just- 377 00:14:52,533 --> 00:14:54,300 [Scott] Click bait. - Click bait, right. 378 00:14:54,300 --> 00:14:57,400 Garbage with a good headline that, you know, so. 379 00:14:57,400 --> 00:14:59,400 That's an important distinction. 380 00:14:59,400 --> 00:15:03,400 I'll say though, one thing that we are taught is, 381 00:15:03,400 --> 00:15:05,533 I mean, this is like born out in the data 382 00:15:05,533 --> 00:15:08,300 is that if you mislead readers, 383 00:15:08,300 --> 00:15:10,866 they don't come back. - Right. 384 00:15:10,866 --> 00:15:15,066 - And so,I think there's always a fine needle to thread 385 00:15:15,066 --> 00:15:18,366 to try to find a headline that is most compelling 386 00:15:18,366 --> 00:15:19,866 as it can be while also 387 00:15:19,866 --> 00:15:21,466 sticking to the content of the story 388 00:15:21,466 --> 00:15:23,700 because you don't want to turn readers off. 389 00:15:23,700 --> 00:15:26,366 - On the research side of things. 390 00:15:26,366 --> 00:15:29,266 I'm not engaged with the click universe at all. 391 00:15:29,266 --> 00:15:32,733 But we're engaged with the citation universe. 392 00:15:32,733 --> 00:15:33,633 - Yeah. 393 00:15:33,633 --> 00:15:34,966 So that's the click equivalent almost. 394 00:15:34,966 --> 00:15:36,033 - That's the click. 395 00:15:36,033 --> 00:15:37,300 So when the paper is published, 396 00:15:37,300 --> 00:15:38,966 another paper in a different journal 397 00:15:38,966 --> 00:15:40,633 might make reference to that paper, 398 00:15:40,633 --> 00:15:41,866 and that's called the citation. 399 00:15:41,866 --> 00:15:42,866 [Scott] Right. 400 00:15:42,866 --> 00:15:44,200 - And that will appear in the tracking 401 00:15:44,200 --> 00:15:45,766 of the paper in Nature. 402 00:15:45,766 --> 00:15:47,033 So I know very well 403 00:15:47,033 --> 00:15:50,233 which papers I publish will get a lot of citations, 404 00:15:50,233 --> 00:15:51,600 but that is not the main motivation for 405 00:15:51,600 --> 00:15:52,766 publishing papers. 406 00:15:52,766 --> 00:15:55,733 It's interest, importance, novelty. 407 00:15:55,733 --> 00:15:59,366 So I had a paper that I published on episodic deluges 408 00:15:59,366 --> 00:16:00,633 and hot house climates. 409 00:16:00,633 --> 00:16:03,100 It's a purely theoretical climate paper 410 00:16:03,100 --> 00:16:07,200 that has really no direct relevance to our modern world. 411 00:16:07,200 --> 00:16:10,800 But the underlying climate dynamics are just so fascinating 412 00:16:10,800 --> 00:16:12,300 that we publish papers like that 413 00:16:12,300 --> 00:16:14,033 just for the beauty of the science itself. 414 00:16:14,033 --> 00:16:15,133 - Yeah. 415 00:16:15,133 --> 00:16:18,100 How does a short term turn on the news cycle 416 00:16:18,100 --> 00:16:20,133 affect the stories that are covered? 417 00:16:20,133 --> 00:16:24,033 - There's always a focus on what's happening in the next, 418 00:16:24,033 --> 00:16:25,966 in the news cycle, 419 00:16:25,966 --> 00:16:28,033 which I think sometimes makes it difficult 420 00:16:28,033 --> 00:16:30,000 to get into the depth and the nuance 421 00:16:30,000 --> 00:16:31,800 that we've been talking about. 422 00:16:31,800 --> 00:16:33,466 I mean, I think the other thing is just 423 00:16:33,466 --> 00:16:35,300 from a consumer perspective, right? 424 00:16:35,300 --> 00:16:38,500 Attention spans are shorter. 425 00:16:38,500 --> 00:16:39,666 - What'd you say? 426 00:16:39,666 --> 00:16:40,500 [laughs] 427 00:16:40,500 --> 00:16:42,333 - Oh yeah, there we go! 428 00:16:42,333 --> 00:16:43,933 I's amazing that we've been able to sit here 429 00:16:43,933 --> 00:16:45,266 and have this conversation, right? 430 00:16:45,266 --> 00:16:47,133 Because to some degree, 431 00:16:47,133 --> 00:16:49,700 like people just don't have the time 432 00:16:49,700 --> 00:16:51,700 or they don't feel they have the time. 433 00:16:51,700 --> 00:16:53,166 [Scott] And there's a phone in my pocket. 434 00:16:53,166 --> 00:16:54,800 - And there's a phone- - Buzzing. 435 00:16:54,800 --> 00:16:57,833 - Buzzing and it's gonna push alert you 436 00:16:57,833 --> 00:17:00,533 with all sorts of different headlines. 437 00:17:00,533 --> 00:17:01,766 [Scott] Yeah. 438 00:17:01,766 --> 00:17:04,066 - And what you see today is going to be completely different 439 00:17:04,066 --> 00:17:05,900 from what you saw yesterday. 440 00:17:05,900 --> 00:17:08,333 And that just doesn't really provide a great context 441 00:17:08,333 --> 00:17:09,700 for going deep. 442 00:17:09,700 --> 00:17:10,966 - Yeah. 443 00:17:10,966 --> 00:17:15,333 - It's a challenging place to be an organization like Time, 444 00:17:15,333 --> 00:17:19,933 which particularly in the last 30 years has been 445 00:17:19,933 --> 00:17:23,866 a place where there's a lot of long form storytelling. 446 00:17:23,866 --> 00:17:26,366 Having said that, I think we focus on topics 447 00:17:26,366 --> 00:17:29,833 that are,keep coming up in some ways, right? 448 00:17:29,833 --> 00:17:31,933 Things that are longer term, 449 00:17:31,933 --> 00:17:34,900 that are always sort of simmering in the year 450 00:17:34,900 --> 00:17:37,400 or, you know, season, et cetera. 451 00:17:37,400 --> 00:17:39,366 And so it's going to have a shelf life 452 00:17:39,366 --> 00:17:43,100 that's a little bit longer than the churn, right? 453 00:17:43,100 --> 00:17:45,100 [Scott] And then there's social media. 454 00:17:45,100 --> 00:17:46,066 - Social media. 455 00:17:46,066 --> 00:17:48,433 - The great oxymoron. 456 00:17:48,433 --> 00:17:51,366 How that contributing to kind of, 457 00:17:51,366 --> 00:17:54,500 I'm just gonna use the word confusing climate understanding? 458 00:17:54,500 --> 00:17:57,033 - I mean, so much of social media, 459 00:17:57,033 --> 00:18:02,266 these algorithms relies on getting people up in arms. 460 00:18:02,266 --> 00:18:07,766 And so, if you don't believe in climate science, 461 00:18:07,766 --> 00:18:09,500 you could easily go down a rabbit hole 462 00:18:09,500 --> 00:18:12,333 of social media folks who all believe the same thing 463 00:18:12,333 --> 00:18:15,733 and are taking that much further. 464 00:18:15,733 --> 00:18:16,766 You also could find people 465 00:18:16,766 --> 00:18:19,733 who believe that the world is ending tomorrow. 466 00:18:19,733 --> 00:18:21,266 And you could take it in that direction. 467 00:18:21,266 --> 00:18:22,766 - Half the students in my classroom. 468 00:18:22,766 --> 00:18:26,166 - You know, this is my view as a journalist analyzing this 469 00:18:26,166 --> 00:18:30,500 and not so much as it pertains to my own work, 470 00:18:30,500 --> 00:18:33,466 but clearly there's some value 471 00:18:33,466 --> 00:18:35,833 in getting people to care, right? 472 00:18:35,833 --> 00:18:37,466 - Yeah. - But it's important that 473 00:18:37,466 --> 00:18:41,966 that care is rooted in an understanding of, 474 00:18:41,966 --> 00:18:43,333 you know, facts. 475 00:18:43,333 --> 00:18:45,300 And again, I mean, I don't know, how do you feel about it? 476 00:18:45,300 --> 00:18:46,666 I mean, in some ways, it must be good 477 00:18:46,666 --> 00:18:48,266 that your students care, 478 00:18:48,266 --> 00:18:50,233 but you of course, wish that they were carrying in a way 479 00:18:50,233 --> 00:18:53,266 that was a little more grounded. 480 00:18:53,266 --> 00:18:57,933 - Yeah, and that didn't cause them to become depressed. 481 00:18:57,933 --> 00:18:59,066 - Right. 482 00:18:59,066 --> 00:19:03,900 - Doom is a narrative in many circles in social media. 483 00:19:03,900 --> 00:19:06,333 And like Justin was saying, 484 00:19:06,333 --> 00:19:08,400 social media encourages tribalism 485 00:19:08,400 --> 00:19:09,966 and circling of the wagons. 486 00:19:09,966 --> 00:19:12,000 And I think it acts as an attractor 487 00:19:12,000 --> 00:19:13,666 of those kinds of viewpoints 488 00:19:13,666 --> 00:19:16,533 that then get amplified and reinforced. 489 00:19:16,533 --> 00:19:18,166 So for young people, 490 00:19:18,166 --> 00:19:20,400 getting that understanding I think is very hard 491 00:19:20,400 --> 00:19:24,633 because the immediate stories you see are heat waves, 492 00:19:24,633 --> 00:19:28,200 floods, hurricanes, extreme events, 493 00:19:28,200 --> 00:19:30,866 all of which are getting worse in some parts of the world. 494 00:19:30,866 --> 00:19:32,366 [Scott] Interesting. 495 00:19:32,366 --> 00:19:34,666 - Can I just come in on this one point 496 00:19:34,666 --> 00:19:38,200 because I think part of it is like being alarmed 497 00:19:38,200 --> 00:19:39,666 about the right things. 498 00:19:39,666 --> 00:19:41,866 Things that are maybe more mundane, 499 00:19:41,866 --> 00:19:43,466 but actually quite significant. 500 00:19:43,466 --> 00:19:48,466 Migration that is clearly going to happen. 501 00:19:48,466 --> 00:19:51,533 These are things that are happening in the base case. 502 00:19:51,533 --> 00:19:52,600 [Scott] Right. 503 00:19:52,600 --> 00:19:55,300 - And social media I think does not encourage that. 504 00:19:55,300 --> 00:19:56,233 - Correct. 505 00:19:56,233 --> 00:19:58,166 - And I think broadly speaking, 506 00:19:58,166 --> 00:20:01,233 media needs to find better ways to communicate 507 00:20:01,233 --> 00:20:03,366 the results of what's happening in the base case, 508 00:20:03,366 --> 00:20:05,733 rather than having to rely on the crutch 509 00:20:05,733 --> 00:20:11,533 of these extreme things that most likely will not happen. 510 00:20:11,533 --> 00:20:14,000 - That's well put. 511 00:20:14,000 --> 00:20:16,800 So what are the other challenges to good climate reporting 512 00:20:16,800 --> 00:20:20,133 and good climate science publishing? 513 00:20:20,133 --> 00:20:23,700 - We're in a situation where on a regular basis, 514 00:20:23,700 --> 00:20:27,333 scientists within a narrowly defined field 515 00:20:27,333 --> 00:20:29,333 cannot communicate with each other. 516 00:20:29,333 --> 00:20:30,400 [Scott] Yeah. 517 00:20:30,400 --> 00:20:33,400 - And I've heard hundreds of scientific talks, 518 00:20:33,400 --> 00:20:36,300 and my main takeaway from that 519 00:20:36,300 --> 00:20:38,966 is that scientists think of their audiences 520 00:20:38,966 --> 00:20:42,000 as being genetic copies of themselves, 521 00:20:42,000 --> 00:20:45,233 people with equal backgrounds and equal interests. 522 00:20:45,233 --> 00:20:48,833 And they make usually, for very good cultural reasons, 523 00:20:48,833 --> 00:20:51,833 little effort to think about their audience. 524 00:20:51,833 --> 00:20:54,700 And I think that empathy question I talked about 525 00:20:54,700 --> 00:20:57,066 at the beginning really goes down to the scientists 526 00:20:57,066 --> 00:20:58,366 and their audience. 527 00:20:58,366 --> 00:21:00,300 Who do you think of as being their audience 528 00:21:00,300 --> 00:21:02,133 and how can they communicate to somebody 529 00:21:02,133 --> 00:21:04,566 who is from a radically different scientific, 530 00:21:04,566 --> 00:21:07,400 but also just cultural background? 531 00:21:07,400 --> 00:21:10,466 And scientists are not trained to do that. 532 00:21:10,466 --> 00:21:13,100 There's very little professional reward system 533 00:21:13,100 --> 00:21:15,933 to compensate for the effort required to do it. 534 00:21:15,933 --> 00:21:18,133 But that's the only way that we're gonna make progress. 535 00:21:18,133 --> 00:21:19,800 - That's a really interesting point. 536 00:21:19,800 --> 00:21:22,466 And particularly in complex topics like this 537 00:21:22,466 --> 00:21:25,233 that cross over so many different field. 538 00:21:25,233 --> 00:21:29,366 So next steps, next steps to help scientists in journals, 539 00:21:29,366 --> 00:21:32,600 mainstream media, social media, all these things. 540 00:21:32,600 --> 00:21:34,900 How do we better communicate on climate? 541 00:21:34,900 --> 00:21:38,600 - So the scientists that I work with are deeply interested 542 00:21:38,600 --> 00:21:40,366 in the uncertainties in climate science, 543 00:21:40,366 --> 00:21:44,066 the interactions that are taking place in the system. 544 00:21:44,066 --> 00:21:45,200 All of which means 545 00:21:45,200 --> 00:21:47,966 that they are pushing the boundaries of understanding. 546 00:21:47,966 --> 00:21:50,800 They're never looking in the rear view mirror. 547 00:21:50,800 --> 00:21:52,033 And what they see, 548 00:21:52,033 --> 00:21:54,700 if they looked in the rear view mirror, 549 00:21:54,700 --> 00:21:57,366 is smooth sailing. 550 00:21:57,366 --> 00:21:59,533 We understand the big questions 551 00:21:59,533 --> 00:22:03,133 in climate science spectacularly well. 552 00:22:03,133 --> 00:22:06,800 Ongoing emission of gases like carbon dioxide, methane, 553 00:22:06,800 --> 00:22:09,833 nitrous dioxide will warm the climate, 554 00:22:09,833 --> 00:22:11,033 will melt ice, 555 00:22:11,033 --> 00:22:12,200 will raise sea level. 556 00:22:12,200 --> 00:22:13,433 [Scott] Yeah. 557 00:22:13,433 --> 00:22:15,266 - Now that kind of narrative gets lost to a certain degree 558 00:22:15,266 --> 00:22:17,700 I think within scientific discussion, 559 00:22:17,700 --> 00:22:19,533 within scientists themselves, 560 00:22:19,533 --> 00:22:22,466 because there are no longer interested in those questions. 561 00:22:22,466 --> 00:22:23,800 The interesting questions are out 562 00:22:23,800 --> 00:22:25,300 in the realm of uncertainty. 563 00:22:25,300 --> 00:22:27,933 So they have to simultaneously be able to reinforce 564 00:22:27,933 --> 00:22:29,866 the core understanding 565 00:22:29,866 --> 00:22:32,033 while still being able to translate their excitement 566 00:22:32,033 --> 00:22:35,300 and their interest and the fascinating work 567 00:22:35,300 --> 00:22:37,100 that they're doing out on the frontier. 568 00:22:37,100 --> 00:22:38,033 - Interesting. 569 00:22:38,033 --> 00:22:39,133 Yeah. 570 00:22:39,133 --> 00:22:43,600 How about on your end of things, next steps? 571 00:22:43,600 --> 00:22:46,333 - Well, I think the big challenge for me, 572 00:22:46,333 --> 00:22:47,933 and I think for media broadly, 573 00:22:47,933 --> 00:22:50,466 and I think for anyone communicating on climate 574 00:22:50,466 --> 00:22:53,000 is how to take it out of the realm, 575 00:22:53,000 --> 00:22:55,366 the academic realm, right? 576 00:22:55,366 --> 00:22:58,000 How do you take the very important work 577 00:22:58,000 --> 00:23:01,600 that's coming out of journals 578 00:23:01,600 --> 00:23:04,566 and showed that it's meaningful to people 579 00:23:04,566 --> 00:23:07,100 in a way that's grounded. 580 00:23:07,100 --> 00:23:09,533 And so I think the more that we can continue 581 00:23:09,533 --> 00:23:16,433 to find ways to connect climate with people's realities, 582 00:23:16,433 --> 00:23:20,266 the more people are going to relate to it and understand it. 583 00:23:20,266 --> 00:23:22,533 - Well, look, I've really enjoyed our discussion. 584 00:23:22,533 --> 00:23:25,433 Really, I've learned a lot and hope you have. 585 00:23:25,433 --> 00:23:26,933 Final thoughts. 586 00:23:26,933 --> 00:23:28,200 If you wanted to leave our viewers 587 00:23:28,200 --> 00:23:31,766 with just a couple key things, Mike, what would that be? 588 00:23:31,766 --> 00:23:33,500 - I think there needs to be a better bridge 589 00:23:33,500 --> 00:23:36,533 between my world and Justin's world. 590 00:23:36,533 --> 00:23:40,600 I think there needs to be support for academics 591 00:23:40,600 --> 00:23:45,333 who want to be a bridge between research and media 592 00:23:45,333 --> 00:23:46,600 and who are good at it. 593 00:23:46,600 --> 00:23:47,666 Like, not everyone is, 594 00:23:47,666 --> 00:23:49,500 but there are people who are passionate 595 00:23:49,500 --> 00:23:50,566 and who want to do it, 596 00:23:50,566 --> 00:23:51,733 but they have an incredibly hard time 597 00:23:51,733 --> 00:23:54,033 building a career doing so. 598 00:23:54,033 --> 00:23:57,566 And I think that a very small adjustment 599 00:23:57,566 --> 00:23:59,233 to academic incentive, promotion, 600 00:23:59,233 --> 00:24:01,733 and tenure structures could support those people. 601 00:24:01,733 --> 00:24:03,400 And it could be a hugely effective way 602 00:24:03,400 --> 00:24:05,400 of making this interaction better. 603 00:24:05,400 --> 00:24:06,733 - That's a neat thought. 604 00:24:06,733 --> 00:24:08,100 Yeah, thank you. 605 00:24:08,100 --> 00:24:11,500 - Well, I'll say, I guess, 606 00:24:11,500 --> 00:24:15,433 I oftentimes have this discussion with various people 607 00:24:15,433 --> 00:24:16,700 out in the world 608 00:24:16,700 --> 00:24:19,466 where they'll complain about the state of climate journalism 609 00:24:19,466 --> 00:24:22,666 and I'll say, "Well, what publications do 610 00:24:22,666 --> 00:24:23,933 you subscribe to?" 611 00:24:23,933 --> 00:24:26,833 And they'll say, "Well, I subscribed to this one, 612 00:24:26,833 --> 00:24:28,800 I subscribe to the 'New York Times'." 613 00:24:28,800 --> 00:24:32,066 "Okay, well, how do you think we're paying 614 00:24:32,066 --> 00:24:33,900 for all this climate journalism?" 615 00:24:33,900 --> 00:24:38,333 So I guess I would leave with the message of subscribe, 616 00:24:38,333 --> 00:24:42,266 subscribe to media and then shoot a note saying 617 00:24:42,266 --> 00:24:44,566 you hope to see some more climate journalism. 618 00:24:44,566 --> 00:24:47,333 And hopefully that'll improve the state of things. 619 00:24:47,333 --> 00:24:49,133 - Yeah, interesting. 620 00:24:49,133 --> 00:24:51,333 Well, thanks for your candor 621 00:24:51,333 --> 00:24:53,800 and your experience and your knowledge. 622 00:24:53,800 --> 00:24:54,666 - Thanks very much. 623 00:24:54,666 --> 00:24:55,733 - I really enjoyed the dialogue. 624 00:24:55,733 --> 00:24:56,766 Mike, thanks for being with us. 625 00:24:56,766 --> 00:24:57,833 Justin, thank you. - Thank you. 626 00:24:57,833 --> 00:24:59,433 - Scott Tinker, "Energy Switch". 627 00:25:00,333 --> 00:25:02,800 A science journal is still journalism, 628 00:25:02,800 --> 00:25:05,533 but it has seasoned scientific editors. 629 00:25:05,533 --> 00:25:09,133 And research papers must pass through a peer-review process 630 00:25:09,133 --> 00:25:10,366 where their findings are challenged 631 00:25:10,366 --> 00:25:13,300 by other scientists before publishing. 632 00:25:13,300 --> 00:25:15,733 These are primarily for a science audience, 633 00:25:15,733 --> 00:25:17,366 but then mainstream journalists 634 00:25:17,366 --> 00:25:20,033 have to decide which content would be interesting 635 00:25:20,033 --> 00:25:21,533 for a general audience 636 00:25:21,533 --> 00:25:24,533 and how to translate the findings for them. 637 00:25:24,533 --> 00:25:26,833 Some journalists are experienced in this 638 00:25:26,833 --> 00:25:28,200 and some are not. 639 00:25:28,200 --> 00:25:31,000 Short news cycles force them to move fast. 640 00:25:31,000 --> 00:25:34,233 All are seeking readership and ever smaller niches 641 00:25:34,233 --> 00:25:36,800 which can encourage dramatic reporting. 642 00:25:36,800 --> 00:25:38,466 To improve climate journalism, 643 00:25:38,466 --> 00:25:40,666 our experts recommend better communication 644 00:25:40,666 --> 00:25:42,966 between scientists and journalists 645 00:25:42,966 --> 00:25:45,200 and suggest readers support journalism 646 00:25:45,200 --> 00:25:48,033 by subscribing to reputable publications, 647 00:25:48,033 --> 00:25:50,700 then requesting better climate coverage. 648 00:25:50,700 --> 00:25:59,333 ♪ ♪ 649 00:25:59,333 --> 00:26:09,400 ♪ ♪ 650 00:26:09,400 --> 00:26:19,366 ♪ ♪ 651 00:26:20,466 --> 00:26:21,766 [Narrator] Funding for "Energy Switch" 652 00:26:21,766 --> 00:26:24,800 was provided in part by 653 00:26:24,800 --> 00:26:27,433 The University of Texas at Austin, 654 00:26:27,433 --> 00:26:29,866 leading research in energy and the environment 655 00:26:29,866 --> 00:26:31,733 for a better tomorrow. 656 00:26:31,733 --> 00:26:34,933 What starts here changes the world.