Supporters of comprehensive federal climate change legislation find themselves frustrated in the face of a public that has tuned out. Scientific data supporting regulation of greenhouse gases have been lost in a sea of misunderstanding and minimal public engagement. With mid-term elections and a Republican monolith that appears unified against greenhouse gas regulations, proponents for energy and climate legislation must reengage the public and secure their support if they wish to pass legislation in the near-term. To do this, they must open the discussion between scientists, policymakers and the public –because as my mother has told me throughout my life, communication is the key.

We have seen effective communication result in successful legislation to address environmental hazards historically in Title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act, which established a sulfur dioxide cap and trade system. This well-designed program was the result of effective communication between scientists and policymakers. Scientists presented evidence regarding the connection between sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants and the acid rain that was destroying aquatic ecosystems and literally etching the paint on automobiles around the United States. Policymakers, armed with scientific evidence that showed the root cause of this problem, were able to collectively design a system that would address the problem while minimizing negative economic impacts on the public. Can we replicate this process again for carbon dioxide emissions and their link to climate change?

The issue of how to engage the public in debates rooted in scientific facts and quantitative arguments is not a simple problem to address. At the annual meeting for the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in San Diego this February, multiple sessions were devoted specifically to this topic. Within one of these sessions was a jewel – a panel organized by Professor Lewis M. Branscomb, a Professor Emeritus at Harvard who currently teaches at UCSD.

Initial presentations by panel members quickly developed into an engaging discussion on the transfer of knowledge and understanding between scientists, policymakers and the public.The relationship between these disparate groups was aptly dubbed the “Wobbly Three-Legged Stool.” As an individual working in the middle of this triangle, I found the discussion extremely engaging. I only wish that Representatives Waxman and Markey, along with many of their colleagues, could have found their way to room 7b of the San Diego Convention Center to join the more than 150 scientists that piled into the room.

Dr. Branscomb’s panel included Jean Johnson and Daniel Yankelovich of Public Agenda and Dr. Neal Lane from Rice University. The discussion centered on the complex topic of establishing effective communication pathways between the public and scientists regarding topics that are the center of policy debates today, like climate change. Global climate change is a scientific fact that has resulted in seemingly countless debates regarding the appropriate role (if any) of public policy. These debates have left us with a public who has tuned out, scientists who do not know how to articulate the topic to the public in hopes of regaining their attention, and policymakers who are caught in the middle. How can one foster effective communication in the midst of this “Wobbly Three-Legged Stool”?

I was particularly interested in how a scientist can be a more effective player in this triangle, as that is the role I currently find myself in. According to the AAAS panel, scientists who wish to be better participants in this process must first understand that the public learns in a manner that is that is not simply linear, or even exponential in profile. According to Mr. Yankelovich, the public’s learning curve is a S-shaped curve with three distinct regions: consciousness raising, a working-through period (by far the longest portion of the curve) and a resolution. This curve may be traveled in either direction and the public is rarely stagnant in any given place along this process.

So the question becomes: How can scientists like me help foster the public’s progression along this curve to a resolution state where they are an informed group who will allow this country to operate in a functional democracy with full public participation?

The answer to this begins with understanding where the public currently is in the learning curve. With regard to climate change, Public Agenda reports that the public is just passing the consciousness raising stage of the learning curve. They know that something is going on, but have little understanding of what it is. This leaves the public very far away from a place where they can realize how they feel about climate change and then make informed decisions based on these conclusions.

In other words, as Representatives Waxman and Markey spend hours on CSPAN talking about the importance of passing a cap and trade bill like The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, the public they represent has little to no understanding of why the topic even matters in their lives, much less why they should support bills that will undoubtedly change the landscape of this country. Before they will support a movement toward a bill limiting carbon dioxide emissions, they must understand why these emissions matter. Perhaps more importantly, they must learn how these emissions will impact their lives, bringing us back to the need for better communication between scientists and the public.

In order to get the public to a place of understanding and informed support – or opposition – for climate change legislation, there must be more effective communication between scientists and the public as well as between these two groups and the policymakers. By shoring up the legs of this wobbly three-legged stool, we can create a more level and strong foundation for better policy making. Communication is the key.