The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department video “Texas The State of Springs” explores some tough controversies by letting both sides have their say. In this excerpt, Robert Potts from the Edwards Aquifer Authority squares off against Ken Kramer from the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club. So who won? Watch and find out:

Ken Kramer from the Sierra Club has got the winning argument: it’s responsible to balance the needs of today with those of future generations. The state should plan ahead to make sure there’s enough clean water in the aquifer in the decades to come.

Problem is, Ken didn’t actually say that — he implied it. It’s so obvious to him that it probably never occurred to him that it’s not obvious to everybody else. And this a common mistake experts make, because experts can recognize the implications of the facts that regular people can’t. The truth is that less than half of the people who watched the film were willing to take either Ken or Robert’s side on this one:

Source: Survey on American Attitudes on the Environment, Global Strategy Group, 2005

The bottom line is that there are a lot people out there predisposed to agree with us, but many of them fail to act on those sympathies because they don’t understand us, or aren’t sure they understand us. If we make our point — using words that work — before we prove our point with the supporting evidence, we’ll increase the number of undecided viewers we pull onto our side of the fence.

So does that mean Robert Potts won this debate? Nope. He made the same mistake, and few more. What are they? Ain’t telling… I play for Ken’s team.

Americans have a reputation for being optimists, but when it comes to the environment, they lean just a little bit pessimistic. Pluralities believe that things will be worse in the future than they are today. In this episode, we explore what this tendency means for your communications efforts. Plus, a quick and easy tip to help sell — or squash — a public policy proposal.

Source: Minnesota Report Card on Environmental Literacy, 2004

Source: Texas Water IQ: Water Conservation Quantitative Research Summary, 2004

Citations for today’s episode
Download this episode to your computer or video iPod

In Sunday’s Washington Post, Chris Mooney and Matthew Nisbet published a piece called “Thanks for the Facts. Now Sell Them,” chastising the scientific establishment for failing to interpret their findings for the general public. Scientists are “ceding their ability to contribute to the future of our nation,” they wrote. Harsh!

In particular, they cite scientists’ tendency to present the facts of the matter at hand – global warming, stem cell research, etc… — and leave the public to muddle through what those facts mean for them. As Water Words viewers know, I have some views on this subject.

And although I completely agree with their point, I strongly dislike the tone of the piece. It’s full of criticism, but doesn’t provide scientists with a single constructive recommendation for how to do a better job. It may even have the unintended consequence of making scientists even more self-conscious and hesitant about speaking or writing for the public than they already are. How does that help?

George Lakoff, who made a splash with the chattering classes in 2004 with Don’t Think of an Elephant, also failed to follow up on his critique. He slipped back into academic obscurity precisely 15 minutes later.

Also, Mooney and Nisbet are not practicing what they preach. They want scientists to communicate to the public in the style that the public accepts, but they aren’t communicating to scientists in a style that scientists will accept. If you want scientists to believe they’re failing to make an important connection, don’t just assert it – prove it. There’s plenty of evidence out there, and I’ve only investigated one tiny corner of science.

On a related topic, I know that many Water Words viewers are unfamiliar with the blogosphere. This is a good opportunity to get a taste of how these debates unfold. Read the original piece here in the Washington post, and then follow some of these links to what other bloggers are saying about the topic.

Visualize Whirled Peas
Daylight Atheism
Greedy, GreedyAlgorithms
Bark’s Blog
Anomolous Data
The NonSequitor
Get Busy Livin’, Or Get Busy Bloggin’
Effect Measure
Reconciliation Ecology
The Intersection

Your neighbors dislike water pollution — but they generally have no idea that these days most water pollution is runoff from farms, roads, and yards.

Source: Public Opinion on Fish and Wildlife Management Issues and the Reputation of Fish and Wildlife Management Agencies in the Southeastern United States, Responsive Management, 2005

Source: Great Lakes: Responsibility and Awareness About A Vital Resource

So how do you evoke the intense anger about yesterday’s polluters without mischaracterizing today’s pollution control problems?