Last December I took on a new challenge.  I was asked to speak to a large Canadian
audience of agricultural producers about climate change.  ‘Bout time I stepped into a controversial
area.  I’m used to getting hassles and
public records requests from lefty food activists that think my acceptance of
scientific consensus in genetic engineering is dictated by multinational
corporations. Now I can get hassles and FOIA requests from the multinational
corporations that think my acceptance of scientific consensus in climate is
dictated by lefty food activists. Good times.

Like just about all scientists I recognize that carbon
dioxide levels are increasing along with ambient temperatures, and it is due at
least in part to human activity.  Humans
have been mining carbon from one side of the earth’s crust and moving it to the
other, so the math is pretty simple. 
While there is an ongoing discussion among climate scientists about the
magnitude of the change and the timing of consequences (is the hockey stick or
a golf club?), it is clear that anthropogenic climate change is real and
happening.

There also is a range of opinion, scientific and otherwise,
about what should be done about it. Those discussions have edges in politics
and economics, and some feel these impacts are more important than consequences
in nature or on the farm.

Back to the challenge. How to best talk about climate
change? It was revisiting communications 101—know your audience.  I was speaking to farmers and ranchers, a
crowd with diverse thoughts and politics. There are a few general trends. They
are folks that that tend to vote and align with political leadership that
rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. At the same time they are
not easily snookered into a position when they can see the facts for themselves.
They are a community tends to be skeptical of all inflammatory claims, and is
always on high alert for government over-reach. Again, sweeping
generalizations.

So what was the best strategy to provide a compelling
presentation?   I decided to appeal to their keen observation skills
and our common-core values.

Canadian farmers see the trends. Today’s farmer in the Great
White North has two more growing weeks than farmers did back in the
1950’s.  The crops that can be grown are
changing, with corn and soy replacing other grains. Horticultural crop
production is thriving. In general, the effects for the farmer have been
overwhelmingly favorable, at least in Canada.

Not everything is rosy. Some of the negative trends include
increasing incidence of new pests and pathogens that have moved in along with
the warmer temperatures.

Other farmers suffer consequences from warmer weather
trends. Farmers in Florida see lower yields in fruit crops like peaches and
blueberries. Warm winters have affected other production during this important
production window. Fruit trees have not had ample chilling in recent seasons,
and that affects flowering and fruit set.  California’s recent dry seasons have been exacerbated
by warmer temperatures.

There are many other trends observed in forests, as trees
cannot evolve fast enough to meet the rapid changes in temperature. Changes in
forests are being seen in British Columbia and other Canadian regions. Migration
patterns, retreating permafrost, so many measurable metrics—there is clear
evidence that the change is real.

This was the basis of the discussion.  Changes are apparent and temperatures are
undeniably increasing. We have to start with the obvious and the place where we
can all agree.

After that we can go in two directions.  The wrong way to go about it would be to lay
blame or discuss mitigation.  While there
is sufficient evidence to pin the increase in greenhouse gasses on humans, pointing
a finger at the culprit in the mirror does little to bring an agreeable outcome.  While remedies to reverse the trends have
been suggested, it can turn a conversation into a confrontation.  If we can agree on a problem without moving
to blame or a solution involving sacrifice, the first step of the conversation
is in place.

The next step -- talk about how we’ll adapt to higher
temperatures.  What is science doing in
response to alterations in climate to help agricultural producers?

In my case I spoke about the need to protect farmer profits
and the necessity for food security.  Again,
focusing on common concerns.

I discussed plant breeding for stress tolerant
varieties.  Scientists are actively
seeking new varieties that can survive and produce in the presence of weather
extremes.

I covered new breeding technologies like gene editing,
sometimes known by their technical name CRISPR/Cas9.  These new approaches to genetic improvement
might lead to new varieties faster.

In other words, it was an optimistic and forward-looking
presentation about how to meet the imminent change, with a priority on farmer
profit and food security.

A week before the talk I was unsure about what I’d discuss.
However, time would show that the audience was accepting and amenable to this
message.  Free of politics and blame,
this approach showed conference goers that scientists were taking the threat so
seriously that they were actively searching for solutions for use on the farm.   

The fact that I emphasized my concerns for food security and
profitable farming showed that my values aligned with theirs.  From there I earned trust, and a message could
flow.

It was an important exercise.  Science communication in the area of climate
change can be fruitful, but it has to start from observations, and discuss
forward-thinking adaptation.  It is a way
to start a conversation, and at least lay a foundation to express concerns, and
eventually transition into discussions of mitigation.