And now we would like to present.....

Presentation is an art form.  How do you capture your audiences attention and imagination? And how do you keep their interest so that when your presentation is over, they don't forget?  People are drawn to passion - excitement is contagious.  But, does drama have a place in science?

This week, I read three articles in popular magazines on global warming - by far one of the most pressing issues in the modern era.  Two of the articles were on global warming as the central topic while the third discussed how global warming should be presented.
 
Jeffery Kluger, senior writer at TIME magazine specializing in scientific writing, uses drama throughout his piece on global warming.  He opens with a serious tone of doom and gloom, Earth is ill.  Throughout the article he presents fact after fact of how global warming can, and does, wreak havoc on our sickly planet.  From warmer oceans causing melting ice caps and a cooler Europe, to drought affecting flora and fauna, and wild weather impacting humanity.  He leaves no room for doubt - no room for disbelievers.  Global Warming is REAL and you had better be prepared.  Now is the time to act - though it will be a long fight.  While his passion and the examples he gives make for an entertaining read, for people who are skeptical of global warming, this article may throw them off.  Which is unfortunate because Kluger does include a wealth of scientific information.  He gives hard scientific facts and describes how climate patterns are caught in feedback loops and how everything is connected.  And, he is able to describe these complex patterns in a way that is easy to understand.  I thought that by describing an event rather than just reporting it was an effective educational method - i.e. “higher temperatures bake moisture out of soil” not “increased evaporation.”  I think that if he used a little less opinionated tone, a little less polarizing, then this article would make for a very good scientific article to reach a wide variety of people. 

Noreen Malone, writing in Newsweek, took a less impassioned approach to the effects that climate change have on weather.  Her article opened by calling global warming "global weirding."  I thought that this set the tone for global warming to be such a serious topic.  It's just weird weather, nothing to worry about.  The middle section of her article did present data and articles in support of global warming. However, at the end, I was unsure whether to "believe in" global warming on not because of the wild weather could be isolated seasonal differences.  Also, scientists still are not sure and don't have all the answers.  Should we believe scientists?  She also ended with some out of place sentences on how global warming could influence human disease and war - but again, is global warming really real?  I thought that this article could be used as anti-warming fodder.  Also, as this article was less dramatic, I found it a little more boring to read.  It didn't keep my attention as well as the first one.  (As a side note, Malone generally writes on culture, politics, and feminism for liberal online magazine Slate.  She is no scientist, does not frequently write on science, and yet was able to present climate patters, such as NASH, in an easy to understand manner - amazing.)

The final article, by Bryan Walsh of TIME, spoke to the way global warming has been and perhaps should be presented.  The message - scare tactics don't work.  According to a psychology study, people respond to climate change scare tactics with denial.  The stronger someone believes in the just-world hypothesis, the less likely they are to accept global warming.  Again, we are faced with the question of how can we overcome someone's fundamental beliefs?  This articles suggests that we use a message of optimism.  That we relate solutions to human benefits rather than the problem to human destruction.  We must "negotiate with the public."

So then, how do we present science?  From these articles I conclude that too much drama and passion has the potential to be polarizing but too little and the reader may loose interest.  Drama is good, but not too much.  Also, most people don't want to read about the end of the world - especially if it is our fault.  Rather, when presenting environmental issues it is important to highlight what is being done now and how there is hope for the future.  Be optimistic and passionate, with just a hint of drama.