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-

Now I know our survival up to now has been all luck
Good thing that Al and the climastrologists came along, or we’d be sunk (in rising hot acid oceans).
That’s my next band name! Al & The Climastrologists…
This is a cirrus matter.
Some thoughts:
Why do people prefer white, fluffy clouds to dark storm clouds?
Who named some clouds “mare’s tails”? (Probably a sexist white stallion.)
And speaking of sexist climate terms, why not “themicanes” instead of “herricanes”?
It’s not their fault pink clouds are pink. They were just made that way.
Who can say if a red sky is good or bad? It depends on when you look at it.
Why do different fronts have to raise such a ruckus when they meet? Why can’t they all just get along?
What does the rain in Spain have against the plains?
I won’t get into how ethnically troubling it is that we call them “El Nino” and “La Nina”.
I think Schuldt and Pearson’s point is that climate scientist need to look at clouds from both sides now, from up and down and realize, somehow, that it’s cloud’s illusions they recall. The models really don’t know clouds at all.
Does PeTA know what the rain does with dogs and cats?
You forgot to discuss “anvil heads”…
okay, bad joke.
Sorry.
Maybe I didn’t get their point after all since I wasn’t all occludsive.
Confused by the stated belief that the cloud hanging over climate science is its sociological diversity?
Don’t be. It is not politics, not even culture, and certainly not science that determines the long-term fate of a society. It is the dominant philosophy. All you need to know about so-called climate science or this “communications science” is that both are postmodern sciences.
Postmodernism is the dominant philosophy in academia today. In Europe it is dominant in the universities including in all the humanities and “soft” sciences, and even in the philosophy departments. In the Anglo-American world postmodernism is also dominant in the humanities and soft sciences but not yet quite dominant in the philosophy departments. But it’s getting there.
And what does postmodernism tell us, at root? That reality is socially constructed. That’s why these people can actually think (without stating it so baldly) that if enough people believe a given narrative about the world, that narrative becomes true about the world. Postmodernists believe there is finally a good narrative that is diverse and green. But the patriarchy wants to prevent that narrative from becoming dominant, you see. And that is why you see the manic hyping of “consensus” and the bizarre hatred of AGW “deniers” as such a prominent feature in so-called climate science.
They really do believe that if no one dissents, the world will be the dream-world they socially construct. But of course there must be no ethnic or racial hold-outs from the hive-mind.
Well postmodernism is the same as Hollywood, and has exactly the same roots. It is enough to delude the feeble minded and that is what it has been created for.
” Postmodernists believe there is finally a good narrative that is diverse and green. ”
No. Postmodernists believe that might is right.
RalphB,
I concur with most of your analysis. I think it is, though, only the metaphysics and epistemology areas of any given philosophy that essentially determines the whole remainder of a philosophy. The metaphysical and epistemological areas of ‘postmodern philosophy’ are an inane irrational playground used as a basis to create social phantasies.
John
Reminds me of the old adage: When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
Ralph B,
Good post. The problem with postmodernists is this: if their narrative conflicts with reality, eventually reality will smack them down.
If the current social construct is that love conquers all, including bad human nature, and thus we do not need guns because the “good narrative” is enough, then the ones left with the guns will call all the shots.
The postmoderrnists will hate what happens next. But that’s what happens when you go against reality. Those whose narrative is to demonize carbon will run up against the same hard reality. China doesn’t give a damn if the West drastically reduces CO2. In fact, China will love that. They will just pick up what’s left, and get rich in the process.
+2
“Color-blind communications are, paradoxically, ineffective. What it implies to minority individuals is that their unique perspectives and experiences don’t matter.”
+++++++++++++
This is in fact racism exposed. Liberals only see people in terms of race, thereby putting down all races not deemed in favor by those racist liberals.
They are not liberals, they are leftists. They don’t believe in liberty. Stop spreading their lies.
+1
A face lift through an equal opportunities program is hardly a substitute for a more convincing scientific argument.
FFS…
small wonder:
CO2 spoken is –
see, owe too
– votes + fundings –
leluja.
Translation: for “climate communication” read “warmist propaganda.” This article is one of many that has found a new idea of how to dope his readership (if any).
So rather than stop lying to people and trying to sell fear as science, this pinhead thinks “diversity” is the answer? Let the giant FAIL! continue. I guess it is difficult to understand that people know you’re lying to them when you live in an echo chamber.
overcome a crippling lack of ethnic ….
OOPS read that wrong, the eyes saw ethnic, but the brain registered ” a crippling lack of ethics” then my mind had a random access thought to Peter H. Gleick. After getting the URL to the Peter H. Gleick article, I saw that his brother is James Gleick, whom I had often wished would write a book on climate change due to his demonstrated ability to cut through all the malarchy surrounding complicated scienfic topics; so consider my mind officially blown!
next up: We need mathematics to supply necessary carbohydrates!
T.White,
appreciate this blog.
communicating with thinking people!
ain’t no cop.
although we have to cope with.
ain’t no expert. but its our real lives thats worth to interrest in.
Thanks for reading Twice.
Hans
The diversity vultures are now picking at the CAGW carcass. I hope they are hungry.