Why don’t scientists have more authority in government? | Robert Crease | TEDxCERN

There's a cartoon by Randall Munroe, the xkcd artist, that shows two people speaking and one says to the other, "That person over there believes silly things, like that fossils are fakes, and the world is only 6,000 years old." And the other person goes, "Not a problem, the Universe doesn't care what people believe." And the first person goes, "But that's our congressman." And the second person says, "OK, we have a problem." I love that joke because we do have a problem, we have congressmen who don't believe in things like fossils and evolution. But what's wrong with that? After all, they were elected. I'm going to say what's wrong with that, and what we can do about it, if anything. First of all, this is not what I thought 21st century politics was going to be like.

When I was a graduate student in the Humanities in the 1970s – the late 1970s – my professors thundered against what they called the coming technocratic state. "Politicians," they said, "would soon not care about human values but only about efficiency." "Politicians," they said, "would soon not listen to citizens but only to scientists and engineers. If only! Never before have there been so many issues that required so much scientific input to solve. Issues involving energy, the environment, infectious diseases, pollution, global warming, and so forth. But never before has the required scientific input been so sabotaged, misused, or ignored. Politicians sometimes even view scientists as the enemy. Is that over the top? Few years ago, a US Congressman, Paul Broun of Georgia, declared that evolution, embryology, and the Big Bang theory were lies straight from the pit of hell, and said that he knew the Universe was only a few thousand years old. And what is supposed to happen to him? He not only got reelected but he was put on the House Committee in charge of the United States' Science, [Space] and Technology Program.

How does science denial work? I'm fascinated by stories, both real and fictional, which illustrate the dynamics of the collision between science and social, economic, or religious values. And one of my favorites is in the movie Jaws. Has anyone seen it? Small seaside town that depends for its livelihood on tourism. The day before the first major holiday of the season, a woman's badly mangled body washes up onshore. A scientist from the Oceanographic Institute, played by the nerdy Richard Dreyfuss, says, "It's a shark!" The town's mayor, who is terrified at the prospect of closing the beaches, says, 'We have to be reasonable, we have to act in the town's best interest. It was probably a boating accident." And, by the way, isn't Richard Dreyfuss acting in his own self-interest? Isn't he really interested in getting into the pages of National Geographic? Now, we in the audience, we, watching the film, are in a special position. Unlike anyone in the film at the point, we have actually seen the shark.

So we know what's up, and we know whom to believe. But what about the people on film? What about the people in the town? To them, it seems like just a question of the judgment of one person, Richard Dreyfuss, versus the other, the town's mayor. Now, when science denial happens, it's really easy – whoops, I forgot to show you my picture of the shark – when science denial happens, it's really easy to try to find a villain to blame it on. The press, scientific illiteracy, maybe what sociologists call amoral calculators, or people who know what the right thing to do is but are swayed by political, economic, or religious factors. Or villains, people who know what the good is, but don't do it. But really, it's a question of authority. Why is the authority of science in government so low? Someone who thought about that an awful lot was Jack Marburger, the former US Presidential Science Adviser. And Marburger liked to tell the following story.

Shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attack, – you might recall – someone sent letters containing deadly anthrax spores to a number of congressmen and to some news agencies; five people died and more were injured. And mail became piling up that might or might not contain anthrax. And Marburger was asked to come up with a method to neutralize the anthrax so that the letters could be read. He convened a team of scientists, they did some research, consulted the literature, and came up with the recommendation involving electron beam irradiation. He turned the method over to the government, and it looked like a triumph of the use of science for the public good. But a funny thing happened, when the method was first tried, it didn't work. It burned the mail to a crisp. And Marburger looked into it, and found that the government officials had second guessed the scientists.

They had reasoned that if the scientists had said that X was the right dose, wouldn't it be a lot safer to up the dose? To make it 5X or 10X. And when he had the dose scaled back, the method worked just fine. Marbuger called this a relatively benign instance of a potentially disastrous behavior. Namely, the tendency of government officials to ignore, or alter scientific advice. And he had more serious examples, such as the Bush administration's claim in 2002, that the Iraqi government was looking for a certain kind of aluminium tubes because they wanted to produce nuclear weapons, which scientists said was wrong. But after Marburger stepped down as science adviser, he began to investigate why is science such a weak force in government circles? He consulted the writings of Max Weber, a German sociologist and historian, who is well-known for his writings on the nature of authority, or the reasons why we obey commands that were issued by others. And Weber distinguished between three kinds of authority: traditional, legal-rational, and charismatic.

Traditional authority is the authority of age-old practices, it's the authority of the village elders. Legal-rational authority is grounded in the belief and the legitimacy of enacted rules; it is the authority of the law. Charismatic authority is grounded in the perception that certain individuals have exceptional powers or are able to do exceptional things that no one else could. And Weber said charismatic authority was irrational, but it is one of the few means that politicians have to take people on new paths. Think of Martin Luther King, or Mahatma Gandhi, or Winston Churchill. Which of these three is science? Not the first two; no society is traditionally scientific, and no country mandates that its laws be grounded in science. So Marbuger concluded that the authority of science in government circles was charismatic. That is, politicians consider scientists authoritative to the extent they perceive them as having special powers or being able to do special things; create new kinds of bombs that couldn't be done otherwise.

Scientists, and probably many of you, think that this is crazy. Isn't it because science is not grounded in charisma that we can rely on it? And isn't a scientific finding not someone's particular opinion but the product of a huge infrastructure, a collective set of institutions that involve a collective set of procedures like analysis, data, testing, and so forth? True, but Marbuger's point was that's the way it might look from the inside, but from the outside, it may look like one person's judgment against another. Richard Dreyfuss's opinion versus the town mayor's. I know what you're probably all thinking. You're thinking, 'Oh no, I'm about to say that the solution for the problem of the low authority science has in government is to make scientists more charismatic. Make them great performers, maybe bring in scientific star power, maybe we can get Beyoncé or Angelina Jolie to promote science. And doesn't this cheapen science?' I agree with you. Fortunately, there's a fourth kind of authority that Weber doesn't mention, and that is trust. Trust is a powerful force in politics, it's much more powerful than data.

And when we trust science, we aren't trusting one person's viewpoint, one person's opinion, we are trusting the entire scientific infrastructure. So the long range solution for the low authority that science has in government is to increase the trust that politicians have in the scientific infrastructure, and what happens in laboratories like this one. But that is not easy. And there are some very serious problems, one of which is that the infrastructure tends to withdraw into the background, it tends to become invisible. A few years ago, a US congressman said, "Why do we need Landsat satellites for when we have Google Earth?" (Laughter) It's easy to use the products of science, Google Earth, without even seeing the infrastructure the Landsat satellites that make it possible. And it's because the infrastructure tends to withdraw that leaves the vacuum for these other forces: social, political, and religious to come in.

There are other problems, too. Another is that scientific institutions can make mistakes. And people can seize on these mistakes, and exploit them in order to undermine trust in science. I call these people "social lagos," after Shakespeare's character in Othello, who advances his career by sowing distrust. And the third problem is simply time. Trust takes time to develop. And the speed of political decision making moves much quicker than the speed of trust development. OK so are there any little things we can do in the meantime? And there are a few, and they involve exposing how bad decision making tends to be if it doesn't trust the scientific infrastructure. And one method is humor. Here at CERN, you may recall The Daily Show episode a few years ago about the possibility that your accelerator, the LHC would produce a black hole that would destroy the Universe, anybody see that? The amazing thing about that episode was that even though it extensively took the threat seriously, a viewer came away, not only reassured but also with a pretty good idea just what was feeding the hype. Humor is a great way of exposing the magical thinking involved in shark denial.

A second method is to get nasty and aggressive. The next time a politician says they don't believe in evolution, let's demand that that politician take a pledge saying they will refuse, and will insist that their constituents refuse, any medical treatment whose development was based on evolutionary biology. The president of my university, whose specialty is infectious diseases likes to say that microbes and viruses are evolution in motion. In light of the Ebola plague, isn't any legislator who doesn't believe in evolution, and therefore, in the value of doing research into it, an urgent public health threat? Making these pledges, and you can concoct different kinds of pledges for different kinds of science denial, is a way of saying, "Science walks the walk, do you?" How strong are your other commitments? And a final thing we can do is tell parables. Parables are short stories, which are very accessible, with a built-in meaning. And parables tend to circulate and become part of the cultural common sense. Let's multiply the parables we have about how bad decision making is if it doesn't trust the scientific infrastructure.

The relatively benign parables, like the postal service story, or very serious ones, like the aluminium tubes equals the desire to produce nuclear weapons parable. Let's point to episodes like those in Jaws. Let's write and stage more plays like Ibsen's play "Enemy of the people," which is the granddad of the genre. And what these parables do is to point out how silly it is to try and to make the shark go away by magical thinking. If we do all of these things, all of the time, we might not change the mind of the politician in the xkcd cartoon, but I think we will begin to change the climate in which they get elected. And our challenge, in the long run, is to find ways to make more visible the scientific infrastructure, what happens in laboratories like this one, that make very explicit the source of its authority, and therefore, why it can be trusted. Thank you. (Applause).

Life is easy. Why do we make it so hard? | Jon Jandai | TEDxDoiSuthep

There is one phrase that I have always wanted to say to everyone in my life. That phrase is "Life is easy." It's so easy and fun. I never thought like that before. When I was in Bangkok, I felt like life is very hard, very complicated. I was born in a poor village on the Northeastern of Thailand And when I was a kid, everything was fun and easy, but when the TV came, many people came to the village, they said, "You are poor, you need to chase success in your life. You need to go to Bangkok to pursue success in your life." So I felt bad, I felt poor. So I needed to go to Bangkok. When I went to Bangkok, it was not very fun. You need to learn, study a lot and work very hard, and then you can get success. I worked very hard, eight hours per day at least, but all I could eat was just a bowl of noodles per meal, or some Tama dish of fried rice or something like that. And where I stayed was very bad, a small room where a lot of people slept.

It was very hot. I started to question a lot. When I work hard, why is my life so hard? It must be something wrong, because I produce a lot of things, but I cannot get enough. And I tried to learn, I tried to study. I tried to study in the university. It's very hard to learn in university, because it's very boring. (Laughter) And when I looked at subjects in the university, in every faculty, most of them had destructive knowledge. There's no productive knowledge in university for me. If you learn to be an architect or engineer, that means you ruin more. The more these people work, the mountain will be destroyed more. And a good land in Chao Praya Basin will be covered with concrete more and more. We destroy more. If we go to agriculture faculty or something like that, that means we learn how to poison, to poison the land, the water, and learn to destroy everything. I feel like everything we do is so complicated, so hard.

We just make everything hard. Life was so hard and I felt disappointed. I started to think about, why did I have to be in Bangkok? I thought about when I was a kid, nobody worked eight hours per day, everybody worked two hours, two months a year, planting rice one month and harvesting the rice another month. The rest is free time, ten months of free time. That's why people have so many festivals in Thailand, every month they have festival. (Laughter) Because they have so much free time. And then in the daytime, everyone even takes a nap. Even now in Laos, go to Laos if you can, people take a nap after lunch. And after they wake up, they just gossip, how's your son-in-law, how's your wife, daughter-in-law. People have a lot of time, but because they have a lot of time, they have time to be with themselves. And when they have time to be with themselves, they have time to understand themselves. When they understand themselves, they can see what they want in their life.

So, many people see that they want happiness, they want love, they want to enjoy their life. So, people see a lot of beauty in their life, so they express that beauty in many ways. Some people by carving the handle of their knife, very beautiful, they weave the baskets very nicely. But, now, nobody does that. Nobody can do something like that. People use plastic everywhere. So, I feel like it's something wrong in there, I cannot live this way I'm living. So, I decided to quit University, and went back home. When I went back home, I started to live like I remember, like when I was a kid. I started to work two months a year. I got four tons of rice. And the whole family, six people, we eat less than half a ton per year. So we can sell some rice. I took two ponds, two fish ponds. We have fish to eat all year round. And I started a small garden.

Less than half an acre. And I spend 15 minutes per day to take care of the garden. I have more than 30 varieties of vegetables in the garden. So, six people cannot eat all of it. We have a surplus to sell in the market. We can make some income, too. So, I feel like, it's easy, why did I have to be in Bangkok for seven years, working hard and then not have enough to eat, but here, only two months a year and 15 minutes per day I can feed six people. That's easy. And before I thought that stupid people like me who never got a good grade at school, cannot have a house. Because people who are cleverer than me, who are number one in the class every year, they get a good job, but they need to work more than 30 years to have a house. But me, who cannot finish university, how could I have a house? Hopeless for people who have low education, like me.

But, then I started to do earthly building, it's so easy. I spend two hours per day, from 5 o'clock in the morning, until 7 o'clock in the morning, two hours per day. And in three months, I got a house. And another friend who's the most clever in the class, he spent three months to build his house, too. But, he had to be in debt. He had to pay for his debt for 30 years. So, compared to him, I have 29 years and 10 months of free time. (Laughter) So, I feel that life is so easy. I never thought I could build a house as easy as that. And I keep building a house every year, at least one house every year. Now, I have no money, but I have many houses. (Laughter) My problem is in which house I will sleep tonight. (Laughter) So, a house is not a problem, anybody can build a house.

The kids, 13 years old, at the school, they make bricks together, they make a house. After one month, they have a library. The kids can make a house, a very old nun can build a hut for herself. Many people can build a house. So, it's easy. If you don't believe me, try it. If somebody wants to have a house. And then, the next thing is clothing. I felt like I'm poor, like I'm not handsome. I tried to dress like somebody else, like a movie star. To make myself look good, look better. I spent one month to save money to buy a pair of jeans. When I wore them, I turned left, I turned right, looked in the mirror. Every time I look, I am the same person. The most expensive pants cannot change my life. I felt like I'm so crazy, why did I have to buy them? Spend one month to have a pair of pants. It doesn't change me. I started to think more about that. Why do we need to follow fashion? Because, when we follow fashion, we never catch up with it, because we follow it.

So, don't follow it, just stay here. (Laughter) Use what you have. So, after that, until now, 20 years, I have never bought any clothes. All the clothes I have are leftovers from people. When people come to visit me, and when they leave, they leave a lot of clothes there. So, I have tons of clothes now. (Laughter) And when people see me wear very old clothes, they give me more clothes. (Laughter) So, my problem is, I need to give clothes to people very often. (Laughter) So, it's so easy. And when I stopped buying clothes, I felt like, it's not only clothes, it's about something else in my life, What I learned is that when I buy something, and I think about, I buy it because I like it, or I buy it because I need it. So, if I buy it because I like it, that means I'm wrong. So, I feel more free when I think like this. And the last thing is, when I get sick, what will I do? I really worried in the beginning, because then I had no money.

But, I started to contemplate more. Normally, sickness is a normal thing, it's not a bad thing. Sickness is something to remind us that we did something wrong in our lives, that's why we got sick. So, when I get sick, I need to stop and come back to myself. And think about it, what I did was wrong. So, I learned how to use water to heal myself, how to use earth to heal myself, I learned how to use basic knowledge to heal myself. So, now that I rely on myself in these four things, I feel like life is very easy, I feel something like freedom, I feel free. I feel like I don't worry about anything much, I have less fear, I can do whatever I want in my life. Before, I had a lot of fear, I could not do anything. But, now I feel very free, like I'm a unique person on this Earth, nobody like me, I don't need to make myself like anybody else. I'm the number one.

So, things like this make it easy, very light. And, after that, I started to think about that when I was in Bangkok, I felt very dark in my life. I started to think that many people maybe thought like me at the time. So, we started a place called "Pun Pun" in Chiang Mai. The main aim is just saving seed. To collect seed, because seed is food, food is life. If there is no seed, no life. No seed, no freedom. No seed, no happiness. Because your life depends on somebody else. Because you have no food. So, it's very important to save seed. That's why we focus on saving seed. That's the main thing in Pun Pun. And the second thing is it is the learning center. We want to have a center for ourselves to learn, learn how to make life easy. Because we were taught to make life complicated and hard all the time. How can we make it easy? It's easy, but we don't know how to make it easy anymore. Because we always make it complicated and now, we start to learn, and learn to be together.

Because, we were taught to disconnect ourselves from everything else, to be independent, so we can rely on the money only. We don't need to rely on each other. But now, to be happy, we need to come back, to connect to ourselves again, to connect to other people, to connect our mind and body together again. So, we can be happy. Life is easy. And from beginning until now, what I learned is the four basic needs: food, house, clothes and medicine must be cheap and easy for everybody, that's the civilization. But, if you make these four things hard and very hard for many people to get, that's uncivilized. So, now when we look at everywhere around us, everything is so hard to get. I feel like now is the most uncivilized era of humans on this Earth. We have so many people who finish university, have so many universities on the Earth, have so many clever people on this Earth. But, life is harder and harder. We make it hard for whom? We work hard for whom right now? I feel like it's wrong, it's not normal.

So, I just want to come back to normal. To be a normal person, to be equal to animals. The birds make a nest in one or two days. The rats dig a hole in one night. But, the clever humans like us spend 30 years to have a house, and many people can't believe that they can have a house in this life. So, that's wrong. Why do we destroy our spirit, why do we destroy our ability that much? So, I feel that it's enough for me, to live in the normal way, in the abnormal way. So, now I try to be normal. But, people look at me as the abnormal one. (Laughter) A crazy person. But, I don't care, because it's not my fault. It's their fault, they think like that. So, my life is easy and light now. That's enough for me. People can think whatever they want. I cannot manage anything outside myself. What I can do is change my mind, manage my mind. Now, my mind is light and easy, that's enough. If anybody wants to have a choice, you can have a choice.

The choice to be easy or to be hard, it depends on you. Thank you. (Applause).

A more feminine, global and sustainable vision to work: Kristin Engvig at TEDxGenevaWomen 2013

So it's wonderful to be here and I will share with you some of the thoughts and the work that I'm doing on inspiring womеn leaders, or leaders in general, or anyone actually, to create a world in which we can flourish, with more beauty, with more trust, and more passion. So I'm going to tell you a little bit about my roots, the journey, and then, how we can expand more possibilities together. So, the journey. I grew up in Norway, on the wild west coast. My hometown is surrounded by mountains and the open sea. As a little girl my parents brought me and my brothers to all the mountains, climbing them, visiting islands, fjords. It was always nature, and with and sometimes against our will, we learned to respect nature and understand how we were also part of all of that. My hometown, Kristiansund, is built on islands, four islands, with bridges between. And the city is filled with colorful houses. So I grew up in this very creative environment with colorful houses, bridges and very unpredictable weather.

So I learned quite quickly to be prepared for change, sometimes sudden change. The wind and the rain always came from the side. However, all of this also made me understand that we have to respect nature, we have to respect the weather, because it is, after all, a lot stronger than us. One of the things that I liked to do when I was in Kristiansund was to go around to family parties. My mother drove us, or the whole family, we went around on family gatherings, birthday parties and I belonged to actually quite a nice network, where all of us could grow and feel accepted and be ourselves. And I must credit my mother for always working very hard on making sure we all felt included. On my father's side of the family, they've been photographers, we've been photographers back since 1872. And when you grow up in a family with lots of photographers it's kind of a special environment. It's not only laughing, and cheese, and these types of things; It's more, move a little here, stop. It's a constant search фор putting people in the right light.

So I grew up into the world and I learned to make sure people are included, put people in the right light, nature, we'd better respect it, and let's put bridges if there are islands on their own. And as a young woman I also looked out at the sea, and I thought I would like to understand and explore what's out there. So as fast as I could, I went on and I traveled. And my journey began. I went to Australia to live, I went back to Oslo to study, I went to Japan to work. And I traveled, I studied research, I studied marketing, I studied advertisement, PR. And I landed for more than 12 years in Milano. I learned quite quickly that what you know matters, but who you know and who knows you matter, if not more, at least just as much. I also learned that how you do everything you do is very important.

People remember you very much for how you make them feel. So, when I worked in a multinational I learned also that politics was just as important as marriage. Being young was not exactly an advantage. Mini skirts sometimes could be. I left. I traveled around the world working as a consultant, I worked as a teacher, or teaching. And I also saw that knowing someone in some of these places I went to would have been a great advantage. I triple locked my door in Sofia and in Moscow. I also saw when I traveled that not everyone was as lucky as I was, that grew up in a peaceful country, with a female prime minister, during my youth. So I thought, what can we do? You know, to put everyone up. Back in Milan, I also joined associations, I was very active in the women's network. I organized, I coordinated, I thought this was a lot of fun, and it helped me a lot, and it helped others a lot.

So one day I thought we have to do more. What if we can gather all the women? We can prepare ourselves for the future. Everything is changing anyway, and we can see, we can do things together. And this was a very strong motivation. I got together a lot of women around my kitchen table and we said, "Let's look at how we can build companies in a more conscious way" How we can get our awareness into how we build our careers. Perhaps we can build communities, there's so many things we can do. So, I started to look at this and said, "Hey, we can build a gathering, we can get people together, we can do all of this. But I needed the structure. So I started to look at how to build a structure for all our women. I thought, first of all, if we're going to do something that can be really global, that can be whole, include family values, and that can be authentic, that can be something where we can put all of us into. We need to have a structure.

I thought the best way we can do this is if everything we do is international. So I was determined that on my team I had to have someone from every continent. Amongst the speakers, they needed to come from different countries. And amongst participants too, they have to be from everywhere. We also decided that everything we do has to be practical. It has to be possible to put our dreams and ideas into action. So let's inspire each other to do something also. We also decided it has to be innovative, let's do creative things, the new way. Everything is changing anyway. So, let's be part of doing the new way. And more than anything also, let's bring in wholeness. The world today has not been in balance, it's been too much based on the masculine values of competition, of over production, and so on. So let's try also bringing a lot of the caring and sharing, and taking care of each other. Listening to our emotions as well as to the Excel spreadsheet. Follow our intuition. If you get goosebumps, maybe it's the right decision.

There is something to listen to. So all of these aspects, we thought let's put it into the formula. Also, as I did this, it grew. >From the kitchen operation, it became something тхат we could see on the global stage. And this comes to the third point. Now we are in 2013, women are leading, men are with us. We can do many things together, both women amongst women, and women and men. Young and older generation. It's an exciting time. And it's an exciting time if we work together. And there are some of my last points today. How can we expand and create more possibilities for each other? By working together. And working together for me means creating a network also. And a network isn't a place where you're going to necessarily go to use it, to take things. No, it's a place where we're going to give and we're going to receive.

It's a nurturing environment in which we can grow, in which we can feel included and feel accepted. And each and everyone of us can create such a network, by how we network, how we communicate with each other. It's a way of being, a way of trying to uplift the person that you are with. And also search for purpose, what do I have in common? What can we expand? What can we work more with? How can we make sure we are helping each other when we are in difficult situations? Because everyone has a bad day. And if you have a hand to hold we can raise each other up. So, how do we do this? How do we network? I have created a few principles that I know have been guiding principles for me in building up my organization. And I have shown it to family members that didn't really know exactly what I do, and they said, "Kristin, this is you." So it's quite exciting, so I want to share them with you too here today.

The first principle is that of being open. On all occasions, in all situations when you are with someone, be open. In fact, be opening, become conscious about your thoughts, if you're about to judge, kick yourself in doing so. So principle number one, be open. Principle number two, be ready to connect. Share with people, not only what's in your mind, of course, what's stimulating your intellect is interesting, but what's warming your heart and what makes you excited is also very important. And I think at work too, yes, we have to be professional, but we are human beings, so share at all levels. Also, be quick to contribute, you can at many times have a solution to someone else's problems. Or maybe you know someone else who can.

And also you yourself, don't sit in with things, share, people value what you have to offer. Also, take some risks. Take risks. Little by little. Life actually sometimes starts at the end of your comfort zone. So there is a lot that can happen if you take a little bit of a risk. And certainly commit. I've met so many successful women at our events over these past 18 years. And I see the key ingredient that brings these successful people to success is their committing. They make decisions and stand by them. That's a very important thing. At the same time if you're in a situation where you come across something that's not acceptable, you don't accept it. It's very important in work life, and in everyone's life, you come across a situation that is not acceptable, you never accept it. And then ultimately, we have to have fun and be light. And there is always something exciting about to happen. So my advice is also to expect magic.

My last slide, I want to go back to my roots. So this is my mother and my son. There is my mother including my son in a little piece of nature of Norway. And my dad behind the camera, putting them in the right light. Thank you very much. (Applause).

Climate change is simple: David Roberts at TEDxTheEvergreenStateCollege

Hi, this talk started out of a Twitter conversation. I haven’t decided whether to be embarrassed about that or not. But I was on Twitter one day and a relatively prominent left of centre pundit, piped up and said “You know, climate change seems like a really big deal, why are so few people talking about it? Why have so few thought leaders made it their signature issue?” And another reasonably prominent left of centre pundit piped up and said “Well, for my part, the reason I don’t talk about it is it seems really complicated, I don’t feel like I have a good grasp on all the science and so I just don’t feel qualified to go out and assert things publicly about it.” You know, anybody who has ever so much as mentioned climate change on television or on the internet will understand why this person thinks the way they do.

Any time you mention it, the hordes descend, bearing complicated stories about the medieval ice age, or sunspots, or water vapour, and, you know, there is a lot of myths about climate change borne by these climate sceptics but to debunk those myths you have to know, you know, you have to go online, and research, and read, and be able to respond to them in detail, and a lot of people just find that prospect dreary, and so they don’t bother. And this, of course, drives me crazy, so I piped up on Twitter and said “You know, climate change is not actually that complicated. What you need to know to be able to speak out publicly about it, just about the basic structure of the problem, is really not that complicated, I could explain it to you in 15 minutes” so, let this be a lesson to you: don’t go talk smack on Twitter, unless you are willing to back it up. So, one thing led to another, and here I am with 15 minutes to explain climate change to you.

So, let’s get started. Why is the Earth not a cold dead rock floating in space? The reason is that it is enveloped by this tiny, tiny thin layer of gases and chemicals that we call our atmosphere. So, the Sun’s energy, rather than just coming down and bouncing right back off, it comes down and is held close to the surface of the Earth for a while and then bounces off, and then this simple process is why we have evaporation, and precipitation, and photosynthesis, and life on our planet. So, scientists discovered, well over a hundred years ago, that the atmosphere and the systems on Earth are in this dynamic relationship and you can change the chemical composition of the atmosphere and hold more of the Sun’s energy for longer. The energy still has to escape, of course, but in the meantime it will cause changes in these biophysical systems of the Earth. And, you know, you often hear people say, “The Earth has always changed, the climate has always changed”, and that’s true, it has. This relationship between the atmosphere and the systems, they go through cycles, but these cycles have typically taken hundreds of thousand of years, millions of years.

The key thing to know first is that for the last 10,000 years on Earth, the climate has been relatively stable, unusually stable, and by stable I mean temperature has varied, it’s gone up and down, but it’s stayed on a fairly narrow band of about plus or minus 1 degree Celsius, and all of advanced human civilisation has taken place during these 10,000 years, the development of agriculture, the written word, the wheel, the iPhone, everything we know, everything we have built, we have done in this period of relative climate stability. So, what we have been doing for the last couple of hundred years is digging up carbon out of the earth, and throwing it up into the atmosphere, and changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere, like has happened in the past except for extremely faster. In geological time, the blink of an eye, we are substantially changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere and all of climate science has been about, “What’s going to happen? What is the Earth going to do in response to this?” And so, we’ve already seen that the process is underway, we have measured, we have witnessed, observed with our eyes and our thermometers about a 0.

8ºC rise in global average temperature since before the industrial age, since before we started digging all this carbon up. And this may not seem like a lot — less than 1ºC — but the thing to know about it is these greenhouse gases we throw up stay in the atmosphere for a very long time, there are very long time lags involved here so this 0.8º temperature rise is a response to what we were doing 50-100 years ago, and what we see in the first half of this century will be a response to what we’ve done in the last 50 years and what we’ll see in the latter half of this century will be a response to decisions we make today. So the question is, “Temperature’s rising, how high does it have to rise before we need to worry, before we’re in danger, before bad things start happening?” The typical answer to this question has been “2ºC.” Anyone who has followed climate change discussions knows that this 2º number has taken on a kind of iconic quality.

Typically, climate scientists who model impacts of what’s going to happen, model 2ºC rise, typically economists who try to model what it would cost to do something about climate change or what it’s worth or what various policies would cost, model 2º centigrade. So obviously, what counts as not dangerous vs dangerous, is not a hard scientific question, it’s a political question, and this was a political decision to take this 2C number, mainly made by European climate negotiators well over 10 years ago, and it’s just sort of stuck since then. All the countries involved in climate negotiations have basically signed on saying “Yes, this is what we want to avoid, 2ºC temperature rise.” The bad news on this 2C number is twofold: first of all, all the latest science done in the last 10-15 years has pointed to the conclusion that those impacts we thought were going to happen around 2ºC are in fact going to happen much earlier than that, the climate is more sensitive to these added greenhouse gases than we thought. So, if those were the impacts we were worried about, then the real threshold of safety ought to be something like 1.

5ºC. James Hansen is the climate scientist most famously known for raising these warnings, but it’s a growing scientific consensus that 2º is, in fact, dangerously high, which is bad, because we are almost certainly going to blow past 2ºC. There’s some reason to believe a recent study said that even if we stopped our carbon emissions tomorrow, we’re still going to get more than 3º this century just from momentum from the previous emissions. But stopping at 2º now would take a level of global coordination and ambition that is nowhere in evidence. So, a lot of climate scientists don’t really want to tell you this because they don’t want to depress you, but I am just a blogger, so I am happy to depress you: 2ºC is probably off the table. So, then the question becomes “Well, what would it look like if temperature goes higher than that? What would, say, 4ºC look like?” Oddly, there hadn’t really been a lot of concerted scientific attention to that question because climate scientists honestly thought we wouldn’t do that to ourselves, but we are doing it to ourselves.

So, in 2009, several climate change research groups in England drew together a group of scientists, commissioned some papers and had them really take a hard look for the first time. What would 4ºC look like? There are a lot of papers, a lot of equations, a lot of talk and complexity I have hopefully paraphrased here for you, to make it easier to grasp. 4ºC temperature rise would look ugly. Among other things, that would be the hottest the Earth has been in 30 million years. Sea-levels would rise at least 3-6 feet, and this excludes some really tail end possibilities, but 3-6 feet at least. And persistent drought would cover about 40% of the currently occupied land on Earth, which would wreak havoc on agriculture in East Asia, Africa, South America, Western US. Well this combined will produce hundreds of millions of people who have been driven from their homes either by their cities being swamped by sea-level rise or by hunger or by all the attended ills that come along with those things.

And, to boot, probably somewhere around half of the known species on Earth would go extinct. This question of pinning down the exact number of species is very difficult, this is very much an approximation, but some substantial chunk of life on Earth would be wiped out. The final bit of bad news… that’s not true, there’s more bad news to come, a middle bit of bad news is that, according to a recent paper by the International Energy Agency, we are currently on track — if we keep doing what we are now doing, if we go on with business as usual, as it’s called — we are now on track for 6ºC temperature rise this century; something, 5-7, these are obviously estimations. So, if 4º is hell on Earth, I’ll let your imaginations filling the blanks on 6º but, one danger that comes up when we contemplate going this high with our temperature is the possibility that climate change will become irreversable.

I think when people typically think about climate change, they think, “Oh, temperature is going to rise X amount, circumstances will change, some places will get warmer, some places will get wetter, we’ll adjust, we’ll move our farms around, people will migrate from one city to another, we’ll get resettled and we’ll go on with life. The really dangerous possibility is that what are called — the Earth has several of what are called positive feedback systems, so, for instance, in Siberia there is this permanent ice, the permafrost and it contains a bunch of methane in it. As it melts, it releases that methane, the methane causes more warming, which melts more ice, which releases more methane, it’s a self-sustaining process; or sea ice melts, ice is white, it reflects energy, when it melts becomes dark blue and absorbs more energy, which heats the oceans, which melts more ice, which creates more dark surfaces.

You see, there’s a number of these systems that are self-perpetuating, and the danger, the great danger of climate change, that towers above all these other more specific dangers, is that these positive feedback systems will take on a momentum of their own that becomes unstoppable, and human beings will lose any ability to control it at all, even if we’d stop all our climate emissions on a dime. Will that happen at 2º? Probably not though there is a real chance of it and there is a lot of debate about that; will it happen at 4º? Well, it looks a lot more likely at 4º. Will it happen at 6º? Almost certainly. So, if we continue on our present course, climate change will probably take on a life of its own, spiral out of control and, according to a recent paper, by 2300, we could see temperature rise of up to 12ºC.

Now if that happened, something like half the Earth’s currently inhabited land would become too hot to survive on; and when I say too hot to survive on I don’t mean it’s difficult to grow beans or air conditioning bills are inconveniently high, I mean if you go outside you die of hotness. I mean, places that were an average of 80ºF would be now an average of 170-180ºF, literally too hot for human beings to go outside and survive. So, will there still be human civilization under those circumstances? Who knows, I mean, maybe we’ll live in underground climate controlled caves, maybe we’ll grow food in test tubes, but that wouldn’t look anything like Earth as we now know it, it would look a lot more like Newt Gingrich’s moon colony, assuming any human beings, or at least enough to make a civilization survived in those circumstances. So, when I say “Climate change is simple.” — I know this has been bugging you, you are not used to thinking in Celsius, those strange European metric temperatures, so here is good American Fahrenheit, it’s just as ugly. So this is what I mean by climate change being simple: There are many complicated and fascinating discussions to be had about what to do about it, or about what effect our actions might have on the climate and when, or which policies are best based on cost benefit analyses.

There is complexity, plenty of complexity, for those of you who like complexity, but we now know to a fair degree of certainty that if we keep doing what we are now doing, we will face unthinkable catastrophe; that’s the bumper sticker, that’s the take home message, and that, you know, saying “I don’t want to talk about that because I don’t know the ins and outs” is like saying, “I don’t want to raise alarms about Hitler’s army being a hundred miles out, because I don’t know the thread count of their uniforms, or, I don’t know the average calorie intake of a German soldier.” You don’t need to know those things to be scared that the army’s on the march and to raise alarms about it.

Similarly, if we keep doing what we are now doing, we are screwed, this we know now. To stabilize temperature, and I don’t mean stabilize temperature at 2º, or 4º, or 6º, I mean to ever have a hope of ever again having a stable temperature, of any kind, global climate change emissions need to peak, stop growing, peak and start falling rapidly in the next 5-10 years. Every year we do not get started on this, we add, according to the International Energy Agency, an extra 500 billion, with a B, dollars to the price tag of what it is going to cost us to do this, eventually, every year we wait. That’s $500 billion down the drain. Now, you and I look around at current politics, particularly US politics, and massive coordinated intelligent ambitious action does not strike us as particularly plausible. In fact, it might strike us as impossible, but that is where we are, stuck between the impossible and the unthinkable.

So, your job, anyone who hears this, for the rest of your life, your job is to make the impossible possible. Thank you! (Applause).

From Japan to the World: Seiichi Kondo at TEDxKyoto 2013

This year has been a significant year for me. I had a very sad event and very wonderful news. The sad event is that my father passed away. The wonderful-happy event is that Mt. Fuji was inscribed on the UNESCO's World Heritage list. My father was brought up in the city of Numazu in Shizuoka prefecture, which is the host to Mt. Fuji. And he spent all his school days worshiping and admiring Mt. Fuji. So it is quite natural that he had been dreaming of the day when Mt. Fuji is designated as a World Heritage. He resigned many years ago and moved to Atami, another city in Shizuoka prefecture which is known to be a wonderful resort town and lived there until the age of 94. Early May, when I learned that ICOMOS, which is the advisory body of UNESCO, made a recommendation that Fuji-san should be inscribed on the World Heritage list. So I immediately went to see my father in the hospital in Atami to share this wonderful news with my father.

He, who was already unable to speak opened his eyes, gave me a big smile and took my hand. And that was my last conversation with my father. He passed away a few hours later, before dawn. 6 weeks later Mt. Fuji was officially designated as a World Cultural Heritage. What is significant here is that Mt. Fuji was designated as a World Cultural Heritage and not World Natural Heritage. It is not its beautiful landscape but its role as a source of artistic inspiration that was appreciated by UNESCO. Mt. Fuji inspired many Japanese artists ranging from the poets who appear in Manyosyu the oldest anthology of Japanese short poem, Waka to Katsushika Hokusai and other woodblock print artists in Edo period. The essence of traditional Japanese aesthetic comes from Japanese unique views of nature, I believe. The Western civilization places humans above nature because humans have reason whereas in Japan people tend to think that even humans are no more than part of nature and seek a lifestyle which unites with nature and never challenge it head on. These unique views of nature developed by the Japanese are best represented in the making of Japanese gardens.

Japanese gardens are made in full harmony with natural landscape Sakuteiki, which is an instruction book on garden making published in the 11th century tells that if you want to make the best Japanese garden you have to follow what nature tells you. This is in a sharp contrast with the Western gardens. The garden of the Palais de Versaille outside of Paris in France is geometrically designed, composed of straight lines complete circles and total symmetry asserting human superiority over nature. However there are no either straight lines or complete circles no perfect symmetry in the real world. They only exist in human brain. The similar difference exists in the world of ceramic wear. Royal Copenhagen tea cup is very assertive in trying to make as a perfect round as possible whereas Japanese Raku-Yaki the tea ceremony bowl is intentionally distorted. Japanese feel it is very comfortable because it is natural.

The Japanese respectful nature places animals as equal partners of the humans. In Yuzuru, one of the most famous and the widely-loved Opera in Japan a crane, Tsuru, transforms itself into a human lady to help the man who saved its life. This may never happen in the Western civilization because in the Western civilization people are supposed to be superior to nature. So maybe a demon transforms a man into a swan but animals do not transform themselves to express their emotions. Japanese believe that people or humans are only part of nature goes on to accept that even furniture has emotion. This is Otogi-zoshi scroll of the medieval ages. This tells a story about a group of furniture which were thrown out into this corner of a garden, got angry about it and tried to threaten humans as a revenge by transforming themselves into monsters and demons. So this is scientifically impossible therefore sounds totally absurd to most of the people in the West but Japanese, more or less accept it without much difficulty.

Now these Japanese unique views of nature are based on the mixture of awe for and love of nature developed over the centuries. You may wonder why the Japanese have developed such ideas, such unique views of nature. The answer is the wonderful scenic views natural beauties with distinct 4 seasons. And the disasters beyond human control such as volcano eruptions or earthquakes. And rich natural resources such as blossoms, fruits, vegetables, fish that embrace the people immediately after disaster. So I think these unique views of nature developed and held by the Japanese should be better appreciated by contemporary Japanese and also should be shared by the rest of the world for the following reasons. One, this approach will help us develop high level of respect for nature which is significantly important to deal with environmental issues to protect the environment of the planet including our fight against global warming.

Second, this will help us develop sympathy, compassion for others which is vitally again important to enhance mutual understanding amongst the people of different cultural backgrounds. And third, this will lead us to the acceptance of diversity which will let us avoid unnecessary conflicts and will help us build true world peace. So I hope the designation of Mt. Fuji as a World Cultural Heritage will highlight the importance of these traditional views of nature held by the Japanese and demonstrate the relevance in the 21st century civilizatoin. Ladies and gentlemen let me invite you to go back to the life of a diplomat. They say, when a diplomat says "Yes" he means "Perhaps". When he says "Perhaps", he means "No". And if he says "No" he is no diplomat. (Laughter) And when I said "Yes" to the invitation from TEDxKyoto, I really meant it because this will provide me with a wonderful opportunity to get this message across.

And this is exactly what my father wanted me to do after the official inscription of Mt. Fuji on the World Heritage list. Thank you very much. (Applause).

TEDxCalgary – Donna Kennedy Glans – Volunteering: The Next Generation

In the last few years, we've learned a lot about the human brain, and scientists can even point to a so-called "compassion gene". But really, why and how do people move from thinking about me to thinking about we? There's no magic formula and there's no compassion supplement that you can take, although that would be great new space for energy drinks. There is just a lot we don't know about volunteering. But there is one certainty. We know that the community is where divisions between the self and the whole can be reconciled. So how can we do volunteering better to foster, even accelerate, this integration of all these MEs into WE? To explore this question, I want to look at volunteering past, present, and future. I want you to think about how your parents, and for some of you, your grandparents volunteered. I want to think about how we volunteer today and I want to extrapolate into the future.

And I want to do this by breaking volunteering down into easier, bite-size pieces. I want to talk about the WHAT we do, the HOW we do it and the WHY. And that's not a linear; that's a pulsing cycle. What do we do as volunteers? What sectors do we work in? How do we do this work? What values do we bring? And why? What motivates us? I grew up on a farm. My parents volunteered in our rural community. The church was the hub of their volunteer work. They'd organize church suppers, they'd look after the ill; they'd look after the building itself, they taught Sunday school. How did they do this work? Human to human. They were very low key, it was grass-roots, pure grass-roots. Why did they do it? They did it out of a sense of Christian duty. I heard the word "duty" a lot when I grew up.

They also had a sense of responsibility to embed those values in their children. So, fast forward to today. How do my husband and I raise three children and volunteer in the city of Calgary? Well, my husband coaches hockey, and I taught quite a few Sunday school classes. That sort of sounds familiar. And yet there are huge differences. Not only do my husband and I volunteer weekends and evenings, we also volunteer as part of our jobs. Lots of for-profit companies do this. This is a tube of toothpaste from Toms of Maine. And right here on the package it says: "What makes a product good? At Toms it includes how we make it. 5%, twelve days of employee time to volunteering." But that's not all that's changed. My parents volunteered in the geographic community that they were part of, in the small faith community that they lived in. Shared values were just assumed in that geographic space.

Today, volunteering has gone exponential, it's gone global. I worked in the international energy sector and I worked in a lot of countries. And one of those countries was a very poor, muslim majority country, Yemen. No doubt you've heard about Yemen in the news. Their Arab Spring is dragging on and on. A decade ago, this country's leaders were looking at constructive change and they were even looking at ways to integrate women into professions and bring them into a predominantly male workforce. And they invited people like me, outsiders, to support that work. I founded Bridges Social Development in 2002, to take Canadian Calgarians, nurses, doctors, midwives, teachers, lawyers, journalists to Yemen, to do that work. So that takes me to the HOW of volunteering.

Has the HOW of volunteering changed all that much? Well, one of the big changes that I've noticed is the expectation of professionalism and the focus on risk. When my father volunteered to coach my sister and I in softball, all he had to demonstrate was interest and availability. Today, to coach minor hockey, we're talking minor hockey in the city of Calgary, my husband has to demonstrate absolute knowledge of the game, the ability to coach. He has to stay abreast of issues like the correlation between body checking and concussions and he needs to subscribe rigidly to the harassment policy of the league. The other big change from my parents' generation: they were insiders, they worked with a community whose values they knew.

Today, when we do this work, we're often outsiders. Now look at that blond hair in there! We're visible outsiders in a place like Yemen. And when you're an outsider volunteering, it changes the HOW incredibly. You have to be invited. You HAVE TO be invited. You have to talk about values. And you have to collaborate. You just have no choice — even at minimum, with the local champions or whoever has invited you in. Over the years, Bridges has partnered with a variety of organizations, large for-profit companies, small NGOs, local community leaders, young and old, multilateral organizations like the UN, faith leaders, government partners. This picture here is from the island of Socotra. It's offshore Yemen. And our health care training team there was a little bit surprised by the prevalence of cesarean births and deliveries. We did a lot of work with in-child care. And we were surprised by this.

When we found out the reason — 12 and 13 year old girls were having babies, we were absolutely shocked. But as outsiders, our saying anything would probably have been a negative. So what we did instead was work with our partners and the Minister of Health – there in that blue shirt-, and encouraged him to have dialogues with the tribal and the faith leaders, to talk about the issue of early marriage and convince them that it was good physically, let alone emotionally, for girls to wait until they were 15 or 16 to have children. And navigating these partnerships can be tough. This is hard work. It's touchy, sensitive. In 2005, I met a young Yemeni journalist named Touaco Carmen. She's there in the green head scarf. And she was anomalous. She belonged to the Isla party, one of the most conservative strands of Islam in that country, and yet she was advocating for gender equality and freedom of the press. She had just launched an organization called "Women Journalists Without Chains." And she wanted to partner with our organization Bridges. It was a bit of a startling experience. Could we collaborate with Women Journalists Without Chains and not get co-opted into advocacy? We did capacity building.

We spent a lot of time talking about values, talking about roles, and we ended up with an incredible partnership. And then there are times as an outsider volunteering when you know you just have to go, you have to leave. In 2008, Al Qaeda hit Yemen and started to target westerners. That was us! In 2009, our board of directors put a moratorium on travel to Yemen and we haven't been back since. It was very, very difficult for us. We mourned, it was like a loss. But the resilience of our organization was incredible. We did three things in direct response to that situation. First thing we did, we went to the neighboring country of Oman and we negotiated with them to take these Yemeni doctors there, to conclude their training in pediatric life support and project management. We went open source with all of our materials. You want any training program that we've got, you just go to our website, download it, and take it, and please use it.

And the third thing we did was set up a youth social entrepreneurial program focused on diaspora communities and aboriginal youth right here in Alberta. It took a really jarring event for Bridges to make these choices. I'm proud of these choices, but I'm also aware that great ideas can sometimes die because we focus so much on our organizations and not enough on the idea itself. Oops, I hit the wrong button. These stories give you some sense of the HOW and the WHY. You probably understand a little bit about why I volunteer and why Bridges volunteers do this work. But really, have the reasons for volunteering changed all that much over the generations? Or are we just using a different language to say the same thing? My parents talked about Christian responsibility and duty, and I talk to my children about responsibility, compassion and global security. But what sustains us, generation after generation? I believe it's that emotional spark. It can be as simple as holding a baby in your arms, knowing that you've done something, maybe very small, to give confidence to the people responsible for delivering healthcare in a place like Vietnam or Calgary.

Or it can be as dramatic as hearing news that your partners have just won the Nobel Peace Prize. Either way, that feeling is the same. Volunteering neutralizes that space between self and the world, and it allows us to relate our self to the world in a positive emotion. So what about the future? I'm going to use an example from right here, in Alberta, to talk about the potential. Aboriginal youth in Alberta suffer. On a daily basis, they deal with drugs and violence and gangs and suicide, and I expect every one of us cares deeply, but we don't know what to do. So let's think about the WHAT. What is it that we do now? Right now we focus on top down. We do a lot of work talking about strategy and policy for aboriginal youth: what kind of youth education strategies work? And we give them a lot of guidance on transparency and governance. In the future, to be effective, I think we're going to have to go to the grass roots, and we're going to have to get to know these young people, not just as statistics but as people.

And we're going to have to wear every single hat we have: for-profit, not-for-profit, government, acting as individual, social entrepreneurs. HOW can we do this differently? I understand the issue of being an insider and an outsider and I understand why an aboriginal youth would look at me and say: "You're an outsider". I respect that. Aboriginal youth who live off reserve can be seen as outsiders. But I don't think it works. It just doesn't work anymore. And I know it's really hard to talk about the other and how we relate to the other, but I just think we can't avoid this conversation anymore. We need to talk more about who are insiders and who are outsiders and who owns these issues and who's responsible. That brings me to the final suggestion, that's about collaboration. To create a community of support for aboriginal youth, we need to partner with a wide range of organizations and individuals, even ones we really don't like.

We have to bring all the resources to the table that are possible: open source, capacity building, advocacy, top-down, bottom-up, global, local, doing whatever it takes to support these young people, with resilience, determination, and humility. And what is humility? It has nothing to do with down-passed eyes and misty voice and noble stories of volunteering. It has everything to do with getting ourselves and our organizations out of the way and doing what we can to support these young aboriginals. And believing that one day, an aboriginal youth from Alberta could indeed be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Thank you! (Applause).

Turning down the heat on controversial topics like Climate Change | Waleed Abdalati | TEDxMileHigh

Thank you. I want to talk today about something that is very important to me, it's about communicating controversial topics. My research is related to climate change. I've served as a chief scientist at NASA, I'm the director of a large environmental research organization, and in that capacity, I tend to talk to people of all sorts about climate. What I'm going to talk to you about today is climate, but more generally speaking, communicating controversial topics. And I've talked about climate matters to the general public, to fellow scientists, to legislators, to the members of the White House, in both the Bush and the Obama administration; you can imagine those conversations were probably quite different. And I'm going to talk to you about some of the things I've learned, the things I carry forward in those conversations that I hope you'll carry forward in yours as well.

Communicating controversial topics. Sometimes this reminds me of my experiences in Washington D.C., but I'll let you to interpret that however you want. The tools of communication: words, attitude, and your clarity of purpose, and I'll get to each of those in a minute. But I want to start with a clipping from the Washington Post at the end of last year about the healthcare.gov website. When it was having problems and overcoming those problems, this article came out in the Washington Post. 800,000 visits a day, 50,000 people at one time being able to apply, but I want to call your attention to this: "Democrats optimistic, GOP skeptical." The same data interpreted very differently depending on who's doing the interpretation. What this means, what this says to me in many cases: "It is often less about the data than the narrative." We all have our perceptions of the world, how it works, and we look at the data through those perceptions, and this shapes our interpretation. This is a fundamental thing to understand as you communicate with friends, colleagues, others about controversial topics such as climate change.

I mentioned words. Words matter. Words set the tone, words convey your opinion of something, they put the audience, the person you're speaking to in a certain posture to receive your message or to resist your message. I'm going to give you just a few examples. Estate tax. A tax on the wealth you leave behind after you die, that is one way of describing it. Others choose to describe this as the death tax, the final kick in the pants by the U.S. government as you head to your grave. Words matter. Stand-your-ground law. To some this is the right to not have to retreat when you feel threatened and actually fight back with deadly force, even if you could retreat. To others, this is a license to kill. Why not retreat when you can? Why stay and kill someone? Words matter. The same situations, but cast very, very differently. Here are just a few other examples: job-killing taxes versus revenue for national needs; affordable health care, Obama care; government intervention, the common good. Different ways of describing the same phenomena, but the words say something about how you feel, and depending on which of these words you use when you talk to someone, you'll elicit a certain kind of posture, a certain kind of response.

Attitude matters. I love this. Would you want to build a sandcastle with this kid? (Laughter) Actually, I would, why not? Attitude matters, OK? People, much more than what you say, remember how you make them feel. This is what your attitude does, it sets the mood of a conversation. It will either put people in a resistive posture, if you're forth-coming, if you're strong, you're coming at them with both barrels, or, perhaps, a more receptive posture, if you're a little more open, if you're a little more receiving. The third is purpose, clarity of purpose. You need to be clear on your goals. What is the purpose of your conversation? To some people it's just about convincing, it's just about winning. When I talk to people, my interest is not so much about getting a certain outcome, I'm not a lobbyist; my interest is getting them to think differently than, perhaps, they have.

And getting myself to think differently than, perhaps, I have. It's a two-way–, it's engagement, it's not talking at someone, it's engaging someone, to move people, to move the conversation forward. So my sort of rules of engagement, I have four. The first is understand the context. I like to say your adversaries are not as dumb as you want them to be. Think about that! How many times have we all done it: "Oh, it's just so stupid! Why are you so stupid? If you could just see things the way I see them. If you knew what I knew, you'd see things my way." People feel the way they feel because of the values. It's usually not just that they're dumb, it's just that they view things differently than you do. Once you do that, you can frame your ideas in ways that resonate, in ways that connect with people, meet them where they are. Don't tell people what to think. Understand that beliefs are rooted in values, so when you tell people what to think, you're directly challenging their values.

And the third – if you take one thing away from this talk, please, let it be this – don't expect your values to change other people's beliefs. If you're going into a conversation thinking that because I value this, I can convince this person of the same thing I think, you're not going to have a constructive conversation. So understand the context, frame ideas in ways that resonate, don't tell people what to think, and don't expect your values to change other people's beliefs. When I put this into practice, when I have a conversation with a person about climate change, to get at that, I like to do two things. The first is I like to speak in simple, logical, intuitive statements. So I'll use something that we can both agree on as a starting point. In the area of climate change, it's this: "If we put heat-trapping gas into the atmosphere, it will trap heat." You don't have to be a genius to understand this statement. Most people, you know, I can get that far in the conversation. I'm not thinking about the outcomes, let's start at the beginning.

You can argue about how much heat and what's too much, what's not, – well, never not enough – but what's too much, what is tolerable. But the basic principle: heat-trapping gas will trap heat. The other is we all share some common core principles. We all want to be safe. We all value freedom. We all want opportunities to prosper. These are the common principles, whether I'm talking to a Republican congressman, a Democratic congressman, Tea Party, independent, whatever. Those are things we all value. Some of us are willing to give up more of one to gain another, others the opposite, but when we start in that place, we can have a meaningful conversation, no matter how far apart we may seem to be. This is a graph of the Dow Jones Industrial for the last 110 years, the stock market, the Dow Jones Industrial Average. It may not have much on its face to do with climate in the way you look at it, but, in fact, it does.

If you look at his curve, – it's on a logarithmic scale, so it's a bit compressed – but if you look at this curve, you see that it goes up, it goes down; in general, it goes up over the long period, over the full period of the cycle, and over the last decade or two, it has actually leveled off quite a bit. If you look at the climate curve, the temperature curve, for the last 150 years, it goes up, it goes down, on balance, goes up quite a bit, it has leveled off some over the last decade. I use this analogy because, you know, everybody wants stocks to go up, everybody can look at the graph of the stock and get a sense of what it's doing. When we do this in the context of temperature, I'll bring it back to stocks. You would never look at one stock, you'd never look at one short period of time to understand the trend.

If you took a five-year snapshot of anywhere on here, you might see rapid raises, rapid declines, you'd never say this is what is telling us what the markets are doing in the long term; no, you'll look at a longer data set. The same is true with temperature. Similarly, the leveling off at the top, the basic principles of economics and investment, the odds are the market is going to continue to go up. You can't look at that leveling and say: "The graph has stopped, the market is coming down, it's going to go back to what it was in 1902." You'd never do that. The other thing is you'd never look at one stock or a handful of stocks – they're climbing, increasing, whatever, – and say: "This is what the market is doing." You want an index, a representative index, you want SND 500, you want 500 stocks, you want to collect enough data to make meaningful contributions. Yet, people do this with temperature all the time.

People will grab a small snapshot. This last summer, Tyler, Texas, and Lubbock, Texas had a record-low high temperature in July. So it was the lowest high temperature in July, I think it was 77 degrees, and people took that and said: "Wow, it's done! There is your climate warming, it's done." You can't do that. Nor can take an extremely hot year and say: "Oh, we're cooking. This is what it's going to be like from here on now." You don't pick narrow time frames, and you don't pick one place. There are places on the Earth that are cooling, many places on the Earth that are cooling. That does not tell us what the Earth is doing as a whole, a collection of the data tell us that. One more analogy to the stock market. This is a reconstruction of temperature histories for the last 1,000 years, the famous Hockey Stick, it's called. If these were stocks, – these are different reconstructions, this is what different people find – if these were stocks, or a stock history of a company, you'd look at about 1850, 1900 and say: "Wow, something happened there.

What did they do? Did they change the management? Did they introduce a new product? Did they realize some efficiencies?" You'd want to know, you'd dig into it, but you'd say there was a change there. If this were money, you would say there was a change there, or [if this were] value of a stock. The same is true with temperature. There was a change there, something happened in the period of the Industrial Revolution. By drawing the analogy to the stock, I'm sort of taking it out of the controversial realm and saying: "Let's just look at data, forget our ideologies. What do the data say?" When looking at it in that context, you look at it differently. You look at it and ask different kinds of questions.

So these are climate model predictions for the future. What you see in gray is the past, what our models say happened before, so you get a sense of how good or bad they are by the uncertainty, the width of that gray band. In the future, we see different scenarios. One, a leveling off of temperature, that is if we drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions; the other, the red at the top, is 'business as usual' as we call it, if we don't make any changes and just continue with our activities unabated. There is a range of futures out there. This is what the basic physics tell us. Now, we can have a conversation about our differing values and how we should address this, but the basic physics, the basic principles tell us this. So I come back to the Earth. I was a chief scientist at NASA, I spent a lot of time looking at the Earth this way. A lot of you look at it up close and personally, that is great too, but I come back to the Earth. I'm not going to sit here and say: "You will experience drought. You will experience flooding. Where you live is going to go up 2 degrees, where you live is going to go up 4 degrees." I can't really say that, and I don't think that's the right conversation to have.

I think the right conversation to have is we are stressing the planet, we are putting heat-trapping gas into the atmosphere. it is trapping heat, that causes temperatures to rise, and that puts us in a different kind of risk posture for the future, a higher risk posture. How do we address that? Is the cost of not doing anything greater than the cost of doing things? That is the kind of conversation you got to have, and if I come at you with: "The world is getting warmer, it's going to be anarchy," many people will shut down. The people that won't, are those that already believe it, and I don't need to have that conversation. We're stressing the planet. And that puts our future in a very uncertain state. This doesn't have to be a story though about bad news, about repression, or suppression. If we look at the challenge of climate change, I think it can actually be a different kind of story.

A story about national security, a story about energy independence, a story about prosperity, a story about giving to our future generations. And when cast in that context, sure, these challenges are current structures, but these are the kinds of things that people value, these are the kinds of topics we can have conversations around. And I encourage you, as you talk about anything controversial, think of your narrative, think of the other person's narrative, think about how you can frame the discussion in ways that resonate with people, in ways that connect with people. Finally, I want to leave you with this last thought. One person's sunset is another person's sunrise. It's really a matter of your perspective, how you view things, where you sit when you look at the phenomena. So, as you go out and as you communicate, I encourage you all avoid the sunset and seek the sunrise. Thank you. (Applause).