Commentary calls for new ‘science of climate diversity’
There is cloud hanging over climate science, but one Cornell University expert on communication and environmental issues says he knows how to help clear the air.
In the December issue of Nature Climate Change, Jonathon Schuldt, assistant professor of communication, argues that only by creating a “science of climate diversity” can climate science and the larger climate change movement overcome a crippling lack of ethnic and racial diversity.
“There is an invisible, but very real barrier to climate engagement,” Schuldt said. “We need to engage with all kinds of diverse folks if we’re going to face this challenge. It will be a problem if the perception, and the reality, is that it’s a bunch of white male scientists at the table.”
The commentary, “Facing the diversity crisis on climate science,” was born when Schuldt and co-author Adam Pearson, an assistant professor of psychology at Pomona College, began talking about University of Michigan Professor Dorceta Taylor report, “The State of Diversity in Environmental Organizations.” In the report, Taylor examined non-profits, government agencies and grant-making foundations and found that non-white minorities comprised no more than 16 percent of staff in these institutions, in spite of constituting 29 percent of the U.S. science and engineering workforce and 38 percent of the American population. The report found that this “white Green Insiders club” narrows research and limits public engagement.
Schuldt agrees, but thinks more than just institutional changes are needed.
“What is missing is science-based solutions that focus on the fundamentally social nature of this problem,” the authors state. “Research from social psychology offers insight into factors that can powerfully influence participation.”
Schuldt and Pearson argue that early successes in diversifying other STEM research fields, and expanding the role women play in the environmental movement, point to three immediate and essential steps for climate research and outreach organizations.
First, boosting racial and ethnic diversity in climate research and outreach leadership can have an instant impact – provided this leadership is represented in how institutions present themselves. Put simply, Schuldt said, climate science “needs to present a more diverse face.”
Next, the authors urge all those who communicate around climate science to confront lingering stereotypes about environmentalism and minority engagement. Schuldt said one of the most pernicious fallacies needs to quickly be dismantled: that concern for climate issues is lacking in America’s non-white population. He notes recent work by social science researchers has shown this “underrepresentation by choice” idea to be false, and said climate leaders need to highlight the reality of deep minority community concern.
Lastly, the authors insist organizational messages can help bridge this gap. Among the most destructive ideas that needs to be abandoned, Schuldt said, is that communication around climate science should be “color blind.”
“Color-blind communications are, paradoxically, ineffective,” Schuldt said. “What it implies to minority individuals is that their unique perspectives and experiences don’t matter.”
Instead, Schuldt suggested, messages that highlight diversity while pointing toward a common goal are key: “We are all different, but we’re all in this together.”
The long-range goal, Schuldt and Pearson state, needs to be the creation of a new science of climate diversity. Climate scientists must collaborate with psychology and the social sciences, and these research partnerships need to be supported by academic, public and private institutions alike. Once that is done and a “new nexus of research” begins to form around how climate science and the climate change movement can increase racial and ethnic diversity, those fact-based findings can be used to guide public climate advocacy and policy reform efforts. That, Schuldt said, is the only way a problem as complex and far-reaching as climate change can effectively, and equitably, be addressed.
“Diverse teams are better at solving complex problems, and there’s every reason to believe this is the same, if not more important, when facing climate change,” Schuldt said.
Cornell University has television, ISDN and dedicated Skype/Google+ Hangout studios available for media interviews.
-30-

scratches head…..
Yeah, me too. I just pass ’em on, I don’t write ’em
Thanks for passing on – it’s incredible! They clearly live on another planet.
I was having a good morning until I read this. Unbelievable.
aaargh…
this worship, for lack of a better term, of diversity is galling.
Im no fan of the german government during WW2…but that diverse group of guys did develop the technology that got the US to the moon…autobahns….the panzerfaust, and on and on and on. The lilly white group pf physicists working on the manhattan project developed the bomb.
All those european jews created the field hitler derided as “jewish physics”
Im unsure just how the virtues of diversity became the meme that it has become.
puzzling really.
Racism is just a tool to attack the Western middle class and culture? Divide and conquer politically and culturally?
“Color-blind communications are, paradoxically, ineffective. What it implies to minority individuals is that their unique perspectives and experiences don’t matter.”.
Well, in science, that’s both right and wrong. Of itself, someone’s unique perspective and experience doesn’t matter. But if it leads to testable scientific insight, then it does matter.
“Schuldt said one of the most pernicious fallacies needs to quickly be dismantled: that concern for climate issues is lacking in America’s non-white population.“.
What an insult to assume that this group being smarter than whites must be a fallacy.
Utter garbage. I hope the authors weren’t paid for this.
“Facing the diversity crisis in climate science”
Adam R. Pearson & Jonathon P. Schuldt
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n12/full/nclimate2415.html
Climate change is a scientific question: Is the human-caused catastrophic warming hypothesis consistent with the facts. How does it change from that to a sociology driven quest for gender equality. And then there’s this gem: “Next, the authors urge all those who communicate around climate science to confront lingering stereotypes about environmentalism and minority engagement.”
Who cares about minority engagement? That has nothing to do with climate science. It has nothing to do with whether the observable data supports the human caused, catastrophic global warming hypothesis. Its not climate science. It’s something else I can’t even put a label on. In any event, sound- like NASA and CRU and NOAA all need to spend a whole bunch of money to hire Al Sharpton and Gloria Allred to host a green/gender/race reeducation camp for all greens. Of course the gvt will pay for it.
When you get this kind of junk, the field has jumped the shark. It has gone WAY past science and has become just another movement to get money and power from other peoples and benefit yourself and your friends with that money and power, making you feel good and moralistic and superior in the process of getting the money and power.
davideisenstadt
December 8, 2014 at 1:18 pm
” All those european jews created the field hitler derided as “jewish physics””
“Im unsure just how the virtues of diversity became the meme that it has become.”
Well, maybe it helps to look up who Adorno, Marcuse and Horkheimer were. Hint, the anser is in the first sentence I quoted from you.
To an assistant professor of communication every problem is one of poor communication.
The notion that the problem is flawed science would never occur to him.
A possible solution.
http://indulgy.ccio.co/78/h9/3g/108579040985914493F9YRS2fJc.jpg
What we need; irrespective of colour or creed, is a bit of honesty from the warmist brigade. I don’t see that now and have little hope for the future.
It is worse than that. These Bozos are arguing explicitly that discovering and disseminating the truth is not the principal objective. In their world, having scientists who “look like America” is more important than having scientists who are good at figuring out how the world actually operates.
Here is the quote: “Color-blind communications are, paradoxically, ineffective. What it implies to minority individuals is that their unique perspectives and experiences don’t matter.”
If that idea is accepted as the hiring policy, it can only mean passing over better scientists in the interest of racial bean-counting.
Well, TYoke, if only having white guys botch climate science has gotten us where we are, then maybe a little racial diversity would get us some folks who are actually capable of it.
The thing is, that’s not what this author is talking about. What makes me smh is that these folks actually believe their problem is a communication problem, not a problem with shoddy science.
She’s looking for a grant so she stuffed everything from the Luvvies playbook into her speech as best she could.
As near as I can tell, they are proclaiming that the answer to “2+2=”, depends on the level of melanin in your skin.
I’m scratching both ends on this one. Shoulda seen it coming!
They haven’t been able to convince the public with the science, so they’ll attempt to use diversity to divert the attention from the science.
small wonder:
CO2 spoken is –
see, owe too
– votes + fundings –
leluja.
Good luck with that. He definitely needs to get out more
My mind is blown.
“Facing the diversity crisis on climate science”
So now there is a climate crisis, which is worse than we thought, and a diversity crisis regarding the climate crisis, which is worse than we thought that we thought.
Wow.
It is all very simple. There is money in the climate crises, not so much any more, perhaps, in social studies concerning racism, integration and all that. So what to do? Just comine them and -voila! The tap is open again.
Mine too Richard. Haven’t the minorities suffered enough. Why should they be dragged into the fraud unless they think that when the gig is up it will be helpful to have minorities sharing the blame with them.
Not only that, but we didn’t even know that we thought it (or anything diversity-related), because we may have been thinking about empirical data and other sciency kinds of things….
I’ve never figured out how racial diversity, all by itself, brings anything to a scientific discussion; now, scientific background-related diversity might be really helpful in designing experiments and interpreting the data. I really do not see how racial diversity can inform empiricism in any meaningful way.
It seems like a kinda holistic, inclusive, way to solve a problem that does not exist.
With so many nations represented at Lima, there is certainly a very large racially and culturally diverse group looking to share in the hoped for $100 billion.
Correction: 500 billion, per year. They upped the ante in Lima. Or according to Figueres, 90 trillion (yes, with a ‘t’), over the next 15 years.
And she should certainly know the maintenance costs of the Green’s lavish lifestyles.
$6T / yr.
Now who couldn’t use that, eh?
So that would be 6% of annual GDP. By Stern’s criteria, it’s cheaper to just cop the AGW.
OOOOOOOOHHH…. I get it now.
The problem isn’t that the message is flawed, it’s that it’s been a bunch of European men delivering the message.
Well, if you can beat them, pull the race card…
Leave it to O’s administration to whip that poor horse.
Good science is blind to differences of race, sex, religion, etc.
Bad science stems from opinion and so is ingrained in social constructs like these.
So, the only reason they could possibly need this “diversity” is because they aren’t doing real science.
Yes, the answer, whatever it is, has little to do with science.
If selling a scam to “countries of color” that will slow their development, or even keep them in the third world, marketing success can be improved by having “people of color” on the sales team.
Of course, global warming couldn’t be a disinformation and distraction program to get folks to move north, into the teeth of an oncoming ice age, while the elites set up their citadels to rule in the tropics. Probably not, but new strains of ebola, outside sponsored regime change/chaos, and rumors of sterilization vaccines make one wonder.
The other side of that is that they dont want the only countries that will be viable come the “extreme cooling” to be run by non whites
Good one. I think that you are 100% correct with no need for editing or modification. Problem analyzed and solved.
+1
These fools need to get the math & science correct…PERIOD.
Teaching “diversity candidates” how to do fraudulent science is not the answer.
Why not? You don’t think they can do as good a job of hosery as middle-aged while males?
What took them so long . I heard this in our organization 40 years ago, when daily we were besieged with the message that the trees, wildlife ,fishies, air quality and water resources would benefit from diversity. But, hey, when you run out of ideas for another research grant, anything is fair game. Think of the new agencies that might have an interest.
Ooops…wait a minute. These fools are “communication experts” and “social psychologists” – by definition they can’t do science.
“Diverse teams are better at solving complex problems” = Give us Psycho-Communicators more money for fabricating more unhinged Propaganda because real Science shows that CO2″Climate Change” is Falsified and “Green Energy” is a proven failure = “Only Lean Green will Keep Faith Alive!”
Do I sense another Gruberization coming?
I’d like to know if Obama call Gruber and Holder in to handle this.
Oh, THAT cloud. I thought they meant the one that obscures the actual truth and science about climate instead of the faux science. Yeah, good idea. Because when it all goes horribly wrong, it’s better to have an ethnically diverse cadre to haul of to jail.
“There is cloud hanging over climate science, but one Cornell University expert on communication and environmental issues says he knows how to help clear the air.”
Yes 95% of current climate “scientists” should resign or retire! That will clear the air!
“…95% of current climate “scientists” should…”
Shouldn’t that be 97%?
We need to keep a few to kick around – just to remind the others why they are gone.
““Diverse teams are better at solving complex problems, and there’s every reason to believe this is the same, if not more important, when facing climate change,” Schuldt said.”
…and this is demonstrated where, exactly?
My thought exactly. If this statement was true, we could stop worrying about competing with the Japanese, the Chinese and all the other nations that tend towards uniformity.
Enter the logic of the excluded middle. This statement regarding “diversity” assumes that the diversified elements each contribute materially to the solution of the problem. I’m challenged to consider how whites, blacks, and Hispanics differ in their solution of ODE’s, for example, based on whether or not they celebrate Kwanzaa, Cinco de Mayo, or Guy Fawkes day.
Who cares, why would we even consider allowing climatologists to solve the complex “problem” of “climate change”, they should just concern themselves to demonstrating it exists, how it happens and what could be done about it. Sound like some people have ego control issues to me.
It proves that we really are descended from the B Ark. It reminds me of this part where Ford Prefect is berating the B Arkers for not getting to grips with fire.
“Well, you’re obviously being totally naive of course”, said the girl, “When you’ve been in marketing as long as I have, you’ll know that before any new product can be developed it has to be properly researched. We’ve got to find out what people want from fire, how they relate to it, what sort of image it has for them.”
The crowd were tense. They were expecting something wonderful from Ford.
“Stick it up your nose,” he said.
“Which is precisely the sort of thing we need to know,” insisted the girl, “Do people want fire that can be fitted nasally?”
“And the wheel,” said the Captain, “What about this wheel thingy? It sounds a terribly interesting project.”
“Ah,” said the marketing girl, “Well, we’re having a little difficulty there.”
“Difficulty?” exclaimed Ford. “Difficulty? What do you mean, difficulty? It’s the single simplest machine in the entire Universe!”
The marketing girl soured him with a look.
“Alright, Mr. Wiseguy,” she said, “if you’re so clever, you tell us what colour it should be.”
Arrh! It reminds me of a semester of Design Studies that I did a few years into my university days (as I thought about swapping into architecture). We had to work together in a large group of about 15 to create individual pieces that were harmonious. As we had just learnt about using rules to create harmony, I tried desperately to get the conversation back to what uniform rule could we use to get that harmony. The young woman trying to lead the group said something along the lines of “Good idea, Well presented” and then went back to discussing what the theme should be.
I should add that it was a very diverse group with the young-white female leading everyone astray, the rest following her and the not-so-young white male with his head in his hands thinking “FFS!”
Some people want to be leaders (or at least be seen as being leaders) without actually having leadership qualities. I think it’s worse these days, with all the internet-inspired narcissism. “Look at me! I’m popular/caring/smrt/progressive/forward-thinking/compassionate!”
heh, I spotted a racist … how about we worry about content of their character and not the color of their skin or their sex organs … and no, gender and ethnically diverse teams don’t not solve problems better …
Oh. My. Goodness. Insanity in the science community. Mr. Watts, check whatever privileges you might have at the door please.
Rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking Titanic. When you’re out of ideas, what else is there to do. At least they get points for being PC and using a correct buzzword (“diversity”).
I wonder if climate science diversity will prove sustainable…
Killer!
How is this different than Nazi complaints about “Jewish scientists” in the 1930’s?
And here I was hoping for climate science diversity that is a diversity of opinions that would open up climate science to honest debate about data and theories instead of pushing a politically motivated eco-agenda.
Darn.
Climate apartheid?
Blacks study global warming, whites study global cooling, etc.?
And the Zodiac! Only an Aquarius for sea level science and ocean acidification, a Cance for climate change induced diseases, and of course a Scorpion for dealing with the deniers.
And Taurus for their speeches and publications.
excellent!
I got excited when I saw the headline, thinking that diversity of ideas was about to be proposed. But no, diversity of skin color or whatever other flavor of the day we are counting. Not that diversity is bad, it is just that the walls surrounding the climate science establishment appear to be more philosophical than demographic. Perhaps the non-old-white-guys will leap frog the lemmings and discover something more socially, economically or (gasp) scientifically worthwhile to spend their time on. We can only hope.
Maybe we should demand that US climate scientists be the same percentage of conservatives and libertarians as the US population…
Is this effort related to “Nasa Climate Scientist” James Hansen’s pronouncement that NASA has the mission of making the Islamic world “feel better” about themselves?
Now questioning AGW is racist??
That’s gotta be one of the strangest things I’ve ever read…
Give them time. They’ll top it.
Might not seem so strange if you consider that someone likely made a good deal of money for coming up with this new, heretofore unrecognized problem.
Please, don’t challenge them like that.
What’s really needed isn’t ethnic diversity, it’s idea diversity. Until that happens, climate science will remain in a cesspool of dogmatic, UN-driven politics.
They’re just scrambling for a few more percentage points to keep donations coming.
They found out too many minorities don’t buy the CAGW meme.
Thus, What we’ve got here is failure to communicate.
Is that next, prison and whips?