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-

“What it implies to minority individuals is that their unique perspectives and experiences don’t matter.”
I suspect what it implies to minorities is that white scientists don’t matter.
To those who genuinely want to understand what explains all planetary temperatures in their tropospheres and any surface:
Firstly, you need to understand how and why gravity forms a density gradient. Why don’t molecules keep on falling? The answer lies in the Second Law of Thermodynamics which tells us that thermodynamic equilibrium will evolve. When such equilibrium evolves it has maximum entropy, and that means there are no unbalanced energy potentials and so no further net movement of energy or matter across any internal boundary in, for example, a column of air.
This happens when molecules tend towards having the same kinetic energy when they collide. This is why temperatures even out in a horizontal plane where gravitational potential energy is the same for all. However, in a vertical plane molecules with downward components in their velocity gain kinetic energy between collisions. But when they next collide they must have the same kinetic energy as the one they collide with at a lower level.
So this state of thermodynamic equilibrium also has a temperature gradient because molecules at lower levels have greater kinetic energy in order to maintain the state of thermodynamic equilibrium.
You should never confuse this state with an isothermal state which evolves only in a horizontal plane. Likewise, the corollary of the Second Law that heat transfer is always from hot to cold also applies only in a horizontal plane.
This is a critical point, because when new thermal energy is absorbed at the top of a planet’s troposphere it will disrupt a former state of thermodynamic equilibrium. Gravity then attempts to restore that equilibrium by, in effect, dragging more molecules downwards and actually causing heat transfer from cooler to warmer regions below, and eventually into the surface.
This then is the extra energy which James Hansen thought had to be explained by back radiation. It is very obvious on Venus that such extra energy is required to warm its surface (by about 5 degrees) during its sunlit hours, but it also happens some of the time on Earth, because solar radiation does not fully explain our mean surface temperatures either.
Nice, but a short essay on physics. You should give longer physics-based explanation in future posts.
Venus or Mars are interesting study cases. But of course our Earth has had 4+ billion years to continuously respond to, and find, a (liquid) water equilibria as opposed to Mars (frozen) and Venus (vapor) equilibria points.
I agree my comment above is a bit laconic. But those who read it carefully (and who understand thermodynamic equilibrium, entropy and energy potentials) should be able to understand and fill in any gaps, such as temperature being proportional to mean molecular kinetic energy. The assumptions of Kinetic Theory are also required, and these are clearly set out even in Wikipedia where you can note the last assumption in particular. It is critical to understand what must happen at the molecular level.
What I am talking about applies in any planetary troposphere regardless of the gases or vapors present. I am not talking about “equilibria points” whatever you mean by that, and whatever types of equilibrium you are talking about. I am talking about the (singular) state of thermodynamic equilibrium in a troposphere. However, radiation (due to radiating molecules) has a temperature-levelling effect which reduces the gravity-induced temperature gradient by varying amounts on different planets, but rarely more than about a third, as happens mostly due to water vapor on Earth. The overall state of thermodynamic equilibrium has an environmental temperature gradient. Such temperature gradients are not only caused by solar radiation heating a planet’s surface and resulting in warm air (or gas) rising and cooling. Because the gradient forms at the molecular level it occurs even at the base of a planetary troposphere that lacks a surface and even lacks direct solar radiation. Above all, you need to understand why and how the heat transfer (in the last two paragraphs) occurs and the significance of such. I’ll leave you and other readers to think about it all, because that is the most satisfying way for you all to come to a realisation that this is in fact what happens.
Well, I’m curious how he knows what part of that I didn’t understand before when I now have to. Confusing, indeed.
Will clearing the ‘cloud hanging over climate science’ warm or cool the planet?
Reblogged this on JunkScience.com and commented:
Never underestimate the power or human stupidity. Robert A. Heinlein.
Bob Greene,
Heinlein had some keepers . . . .
John
In reply to John Whitman’s mention of Heinlein:
Grok!
Michael 2,
If one wants to feel like a ‘stranger in a strange land’ just be a critical reviewer of the observationally unsupported theory of substantial climate change by CO2 from fossil fuels.
It is hard to ‘Grok’ in that situation.
John
A typical liberal reaction to the rejection of their utopian fantasies; the messaging needs to be changed.
Forget maybe trying to develop facts or useful models, just form your lies with different words so as to resonate with particular “communities” because they must not have understood what you were trying to sell them the first time through. (and we all know the reason why they didn’t understand don’t we? wink wink nudge nudge)
The understated racism is soooo ironic.
When I read the title of this post I thought it was going to be about including a wider range of views on climate change which of course would include the skeptical side. Ha, ha…. I was quickly disavowed of that notion. Just another lefty who invents problems where none exist, blames it on racism/lack of diversity and thinks that diversity will solve it.
Two white guys. They could help the cause by resigning their positions and handing them over to two members of the diversity community.
Yes, it’s just like the zero population gang, who say people should eliminate themselves to ‘save the planet’. But I notice no one voluteers to lead the way.
The white guys aren’t gonna step aside, either. ‘Do as I say, not as I do’ is their motto.
Fen’s Law:
The Left doesn’t believe in any of the things they lecture us about.
No exceptions found so far.
An academic who wants to create a “science” about how to create circular arguments about a circular argument…?
Where is the science when you start out assuming your hypothesis is absolutely proven, and you just go on from there? I mean, yes, even Euclid had to start with givens and axioms—but he then rigorously proved his theorms, using his axioms and givens.
Warmists haven’t established the givens, or the axioms, and now they’re even going to skip the proofs?
How do you even have an intelligent conversation with these people when they continue to prove they occupy a separate reality? I’ve had conversations with folks on mind-altering substances which who made more sense. This is like some kind of full-blown psychosis—
Maybe Jack Finney wasn’t writing fiction! I’m going to check under my bed for giant pods before going to sleep…
which, who, what… SOMEbody made some sense! More than the author of that article… Gah! (No, I wasn’t the one on the mind-altering substances…honest!)
So, these new age correction of communications experts have no idea of climate chaos but do a fine job of creating total chaos without even knowing they have done so world wide total.
Ah, yes… The left’s deplorable soft racism of diminished expectations rears its ugly head, even in the corridors of Climate science…
Martin Luther King fought and died for a society where all men would be judged on their content of character, not on the color of their skin… He championed for equal treatment of all races, not special treatment afforded to a select minority.
As long as the soft bigotry of racial discrimination laws, quotas and affirmative action exists, racism will continue to fester in the body politic.
The irony is that a black president has managed to set race relations back 30 years, when he had the golden opportunity to move it forward 30 years…
Oh, the irony of the left.
I think I just read the problem is a glass ceiling and not broken models. There is obviously a vast reservoir of stupid out there that the IPCC and their minions have tapped.
” …..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.”…”
One of the most anti-science comments I have seen for some time.
I read it twice. Did I read what I think I read!!!? Is he suggesting we try socially engineering geeks? Didn’t work when they were kids what makes him think it will work now.
The only advice I would give this guy after the shock of reading this wears off is ” You need to pour a stiff drink and get laid”.
Pierre DM
December 8, 2014 at 6:57 pm
“I read it twice. Did I read what I think I read!!!? Is he suggesting we try socially engineering geeks? Didn’t work when they were kids what makes him think it will work now. ”
I see you haven’t been to Slashdot the last decade.
lots of news from multiethnic, multicultural sites with various concurring rel.beliefs last times.
endemic diseases, warlike outbreaks, oeconomic malfunctions – least to say.
mere less to seek for.
The authors are completely wrong … the IPCC has wide inclusion, on purpose, to allow political policy to be dominated by a few whiteboy scientivists.
offering banalities. reality is grounded on banalities.
lies are fantastic. Hans
Yup. We need to hear from those folks on the other side of the Bell Curve.
The long-range goal, Schuldt and Pearson state, needs to be the creation of a new science of climate diversity.
‘Science’ and ‘climate diversity’ don’t belong in the same sentence. It’s the ultimate oxymoron. The only ‘needs’ are their needs for new grants.
For that matter, ‘climate’ and ‘diversity’ have no business being in the same sentence together, when diversity refers to tribes like it does here.
Isn’t it possible that those minorities this assisrant professor is thinking about are just too clever to allow themselves getting drawn into the squabbles of the “settled climate science”??? At least they can say that they haven’t been bought by the IPCC fool’s gold.
The only thing needed to clear the “cloud” is honest science and scientific methodology devoid of advocacy.
Climate “science” seeks to prove a concept.
The true science – by way of the planets actual data rather than ridiculous fantasy predictions – is now demonstrating just how devoid of a moral compass the alarmist advocates are.
Re: TheLastDemocrat says “A Black guy, a Marxist, and a Muslim walk into a bar…
the bartender says…”
The bartender says “ouch I bet that hurt no matter what your colour, politics or religion – but I’m glad it wasn’t a member of the green party who walked into that low iron bar fell over and left sooty footprints on my wall like you three – otherwise they would accuse me of having a low bar causing a high carbon footprint”.
In my field, diversity used to mean you could code in both C# and Java. Programming is programming. Science is science. Facts is facts, as they say, and it doesn’t matter who does it or what they race, color, religion or creed is.
But the problem being addressed here isn’t diversity per se, it’s the fact that the message isn’t being picked up by more non-white non-males. Get more XXX people involved and more people of group XXX will get on the climate hysteria band-wagon and clamor for change is the goal. That, and spreading the wealth around — why should all the government grants only go to white men?
maybe the overwhelming whiteness of the “scientists” has raised the albedo of the field, and thus caused the pause in global warming?
(hey, that makes as much sense as the BS in the quoted article %-)
What about the lesbians and gays? Or the sado-masochists?
We cant be leaving them out when it comes to feeling hot and bothered.
Or Miriam O’Brian either, for that matter.
John Whitman –
‘Original research has the
seeds of intellectual
diversity. I don’t care etc.’
sophists are sporting intellectual diversity. too.
what about intellectual independence.
and aimless curiosity.
Best regards – Hans
johann wundersamer,
. . . & . . .
. . . . so let the diversity of climate focused intellects set a dialog that makes all past science debate pale in comparison to it . . . . and again, I do not care if the intellectuals are zombies or Vulcans or Wookies . . . .
John
John Whitman
‘and again, I do not care if the
intellectuals are zombies or
Vulcans or Wookies . . . .’
___
or internet search algorythms
or ‘modelled scientists’ running on supercomputers.
___
whats the hack? Your
‘. . . . let the diversity of
climate focused intellects
set a dialog that makes all
past science debate pale in
comparison to it’
is thumbs up!
brg Hans
johann wundersamer,
. . . and thumbs up to you, too.
It just took a while for me to get familiar with your sense of prose and style . . . looking good . . .
brg, John