Abstract: Geologists can offer key insights in regard to several high profile environmental issues that are faced today. At the same time, like scientists in most other disciplines, many geologists are not naturally adept at communicating in an effective manner with non-geologists. This paper firstly identifies the more subtle facets of topical major issues (the drivers) where geologists can contribute important perspectives. Next, the detractions to effective communication are identified, along with the recommended means to overcome them (the mechanisms). Many topical issues are in fact geologically-underpinned (e.g. obviously, geohazards), so geologists ought to have something meaningful to say. By the same token, if geologists have difficulty communicating with other scientists, how can they possibly hope to communicate with journalists and with the public at large? Proper scientific contextualization is an ideal starting point, but this fundamental framing step does not always suit protagonists who have non-scientific agendas. Thus, geologists not only have to convey their science (geology) in an understandable way, but to do so in a truly effective manner must recognize and take into account possible predispositions that their audience may have.
　　Key words: Communication, geology, environmental issues, climate change.
　　1. Introduction
　　A number of topical issues that have either overt or subtle geologic connections are commonly presented, for better or for worse in terms of accurate portrayal, by mainstream media. In such cases, geologists inherently have a role to play, if not outright responsibility, in ensuring that the educational and contextual facets are brought to the forefront in an understandable manner. Indeed, where the issue has a geologic phenomenon as the causal factor (e.g. volcanic eruptions), failure by geologists to communicate effectively can result in a directly correlatable failure to preserve human life.
　　It is well acknowledged that scientists are not particularly good communicators [1]. Although dedicated communications literature is available, comparatively little has been published in relation to geological sciences. Nevertheless, a few excellent exceptions are available, including:
　　A compilation by Livermore et al. [1], which is transformed into an outstanding communications textbook that encompasses a wide variety of geologic topics;
　　A stunning review by Lehr [2], which has become a classic piece that has been replicated in non-geologic scientific discipline literature because of its potent message on how speakers present themselves;
　　A further incisive review by Lehr [3], which provides a dissection of slide presentation styles with surgical precision.
　　If one reflects upon news clips from the usual popular media outlets, the pressing issues that are faced by humankind include geohazards, species-at-risk, implications of the climate debate, and environmental degradation in general. Geohazards, such as those associated with volcanic activity, earthquakes and tsunamis, can be pictorially dramatic events that, by virtue of their inherently dangerous and telecast-ready nature, are highly seductive in capturing journalistic attention. In terms of Earth-bound geologic events, surely there cannot be many more spectacular, photogenic occurrences than a volcanic eruption unfolding in real time.
　　Journalists must indeed be enamoured by the current climate debate, where the respective pugilists are have taken diametrically-opposed positions that sometimes approach ideological proportions in their fervour. It is important to note that this paper strives to avoid taking sides on such contentious topics. Instead, the intent is to identify areas of scientific contribution that are unique to the insights that geologists can bring to leading issues, and how to communicate these in an effective way. Indeed, many topical issues are in fact geologically-underpinned (e.g. obviously, geohazards), so geologists ought to have something meaningful to say. By the same token, if geologists have difficulty communicating with other scientists, how can they possibly hope to communicate with journalists and with the public at large?
　　The communication challenge is further compounded by insidious detractions posed by agendas that are not necessarily of a scientifically-based nature. For instance, the term “climate debate” is used above rather than “climate change”. In terms of communication, the former term avoids taking sides, while recognizing that journalists in quality media outlets generally give a balanced portrayal even when one side is more likely the correct one. In any case, Earth’s climate has, of course, fluctuated substantially throughout deep time, so climate change is an expectation. The debate aspect then ought to address the extent to which specific anthropogenic activity affects Earth’s climate. Proper scientific contextualization is an ideal starting point, but this fundamental framing step does to always suit protagonists who have non-scientific agendas. Thus, geologists not only have to convey their science(geology) in an understandable way, but to do so in a truly effective manner must recognize and take into account possible predispositions that their audience may have.
　　2. Geologists and Their Insights
　　To help unravel the mysteries of geologic history, geologists are trained to adopt the doctrine of uniformitarianism as advanced by J. Hutton and C. Lyell: Uniformitarianism is defined as “the fundamental principle that geologic processes and natural laws now operating to modify the Earth’s crust have acted in the same regular manner and with essentially the same intensity throughout geologic time, and that past geologic events can be explained by phenomena and forces observable today; the classic concept that the ‘the present is the key to the past’.” [4].
　　As geologists they can therefore provide absolutely fundamental insights because past geologic events, especially those that are demonstrably cyclic, will inevitably occur again in the future. The style of thinking whereby authors reflect upon fascinating geologic processes that range from diagenesis to orogenesis in scale needs to be redirected to a forward projection of outlook. Indeed, such forward-looking projection may be inherently against the grain of our thought processes as geologists. Our passion for geologic things, however, can be translated into professional reward. What better reward than to see the application of our skill set result in the better management and properly-informed mitigation of geohazards. Of course, geologists are employed in roles that are geared to the study of geologically-based forces. At the same time, perhaps our training at the university level needs to contain some counter-balancing forward-looking content.
　　Select topical issues that can be shown to be geologically controlled, or stimulated by geological phenomena, include:
　　Geohazards;
　　Species-at-risk; climate variation.
　　These topics provide a platform for developing strategies for effective communication of their implications.
　　3. Issues That Are Geologically Underpinned
　　3.1 Geohazards
　　Although geologists are employed by agencies that study geohazards, they are typically not in a position to actually make hazard-management decisions or to actually provide funding to enable some form of appropriate action to be implemented. Instead, geologists otherwise flag (advertize) the hazard and provide corresponding education and recommendations to decision-makers. Geologists commonly have to canvas for funding. The inherent insights, however, can desensitize researchers to the fact that the uninitiated do not find the causal factors behind geohazards to be at all intuitive. So, if geologists do not educate to sufficient depth, why would geologists expect politicians, policy-formulators and decision-makers to follow the advice and/or provide with funding from already-stretched budgets? Firstly, therefore, geologists must know ourselves.
　　The impetus for human activity incursion into landscape zones that are geohazards-challenged comes from such factors as population pressure, socio-economic attraction of fertile soil (e.g. volcanic terrain) and greed (e.g. cheap land in flood-prone areas for housing development). In short, the authors need to recognize that there are agendas that militate against our entirely valid massage being acted upon, or even being properly heard in the first place.
　　Geohazards can be mapped or otherwise identified graphically. Given that societal agendas can pose difficulties in terms of receptivity, they can adopt an approach of providing a roadmap. The roadmap contains:
　　A framework (e.g. flood zone delineation map);
　　Methods for investigation for proposed-development sites;
　　Monitoring, to provide an early warning capability; and
　　An emergency response plan.
　　Timing of event occurrence is usually difficult to predict with any semblance of sufficient accuracy. Given that our message may be already difficult enough to convey with effect, timing could be viewed as our outright enemy. Deployment of an incisive monitoring array will be part of the timing solution, and thus surveillance coverage needs to be sufficient to satisfy ourselves before authors approach the paymasters.
　　To a higher-minded end, when authors enter the public domain, authors need to get well beyond geology as the scientific discipline that so beguiles us. Authors need to recognize the realities associated with agendas that pose obstacles to our message. Authors simply cannot dismiss at an intellectual level that an opposing agenda is geologically unsound in pure theory, self-delusionary or otherwise unfounded. The opposing agenda is real in some guise, whether it is a merit-worthy societal pressure or a less than public-spirited goal (e.g. outright greed). To succeed with our message, our roadmap may have to be quite comprehensive. More exactly, beyond the hazard itself and the management scheme that authors devise and reputationally float as formal engineering recommendations, authors may actually need to go as far as to provide alternatives for our opponents. In a crucial sense, whether authors like it or not, authors will enter a negotiating arena, perhaps circus. If your target actor or audience is going to, literally or metaphorically, have to pay for responsive-implementation of your message, and in some form payment will indeed have to be paid, what does he, she or they get in return? Life itself perhaps.
　　In any true negotiation that has a lasting positive effect, as opposed to a quick short term “success” due to some insidious slight-of-hand, every key stakeholder must win. The winning division of reward does not have to be equal or even exactly the same commodity on either side of the bargin, but everybody who matters has to win in some way to his, her or their level of satisfaction. To build trust ahead of the next negotiation, our counterpart needs to win as well. To borrow from a cliché, what is the point of us winning a battle if authors ultimately loose the war?
　　3.2 Species-at-Risk
　　It is not too difficult to think of various biotic species that are under threat of extinction. At the same time, extinction throughout the Phanerozoic Eon is an artifact of life that paleontologists and stratigraphers thrive upon evolution. So, the key question is to what extent is humankind being irresponsible in the stewardship of the floral and faunal species that authors, to a comparatively inordinate extent, command? Not only that, there are well-studied/well-documented episodes of mass extinction [5]. The five great mass extinctions of the Phanerozoic Eon, along with percentage of species lost are:
　　End-Ordovician (85%);
　　Late Devonian (83%);
　　End-Permian (95%);
　　End-Triassic (80%);
　　End-Cretaceous (76%).
　　Of the so-called ‘big five’, the Permian Period closed with the worst catastrophe ever suffered by life on Earth. Specifically, 90% to 95% of marine species became extinct, together with 70% of all terrestrial species, including plants, insects and vertebrate animals [6].
　　So, not only does the process of evolution march along, it also includes major adjustments (corrections) from time to time. These two facets of evolution(progressive and episodal) need to be developed into a framework whereby influences of humankind can be placed in an appropriate context. An agenda for species preservation may thus even be misplaced. More precisely, the natural process of evolution demands that some species should, perhaps actually need to, become extinct. Absence of proper framing, via lack of a knowledge base (e.g. non-geologists involved) or choice (i.e. does not suit a preservation-orientated agenda) removes a fundamental scientific context.
　　The message here is the need for balance and an open mind. you said that “but I have an open mind”. Well, yes, of course you do, but does your counterpart in the debate or issue at hand have a similar level of open-mindedness? Consider the full front page article in the “News Extra” section of the Calgary Herald(November 21, 2009), where the headline blares out:“Darwin still evokes awe and outrage”. Thus, if your opponent in the debate or negotiation adopts a position of “outrage” at the notion of evolution, your communication tactics is going to have to be very well thought out indeed. In such a circumstance, the communication challenge is not primarily an opposing insidious agenda, but outright disbelief or even incredulity at a fundamental geologic tenant.
　　As human beings, authors seem to have an instinctive impetus or legacy need for a quick fix answer. Thus, the mass biotic extinction at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary is “nicely” satisfied by Alvarez’s discovery of the iridium anomaly. The authors of this paper are not at all debating the causal factor or factors behind this great extinction event, but simply saying that the call for a catastrophic event to account for it (i.e. Alvarez’s bolide impact) does rather suit our primal nature.
　　3.3 Climate Variation
　　A review of articles in the popular press will show that, at best, only passing reference is made to climate change over Earth’s history. Even quality newspapers, such as The Times of London or Manchester Guardian, only provide implicit reference with statements like“…humankind’s role in climate change…”; otherwise the fundamental context is missing and thereby not conveyed to a vast readership. Oh, how authors have failed this topically-driven opportunity to represent geology to the masses! In effect, at the mass media level, which will command the contribution to the knowledge base of the worldwide majority of those that are fortunate enough to be literate, climate throughout our planet’s history from the unspoken default message is otherwise a constant.
　　Substantial changes in Earth’s climate have occurred across deep time [7]. In terms of past greenhouse conditions, for example, the Middle Devonian was a time of global “super greenhouse” conditions [8]. The Efilian to Givetian stratigraphic interval saw the most widespread reef development of the Phanerozoic Eon, with tropical barrier reef complexes at latitudes of ≥ 45 N and S, which are of course equivalent to modern temperature latitudes. Stable isotopic data reflect very high concentrations of CO₂ at levels of between 16×and 24× (well over 5,000 ppm) those of today. Furthermore, can the non-geologist readily appreciate, or even begin to accept, that occurrences of the Givetian-age carbonate platform factory strata in arctic Canada (Banks Island) were actually formed within 10oN of the equator? Rhetorically, how is that possible?
　　In like fashion to species-at-risk, this fundamental framing step is missing in the mass media realm. In turn, a global audience has therefore not heard the whole story. Only geologists can bring focus to bear upon planet level phenomena that are simultaneously both of great magnitude and commonplace. For completeness, the two big climate controls throughout Earth’s history are oceanic circulation (underpinned by plate tectonics) and astronomical effects (Earth’s relationship with a certain yellow dwarf star, obliquity and precession) [7].
　　4. A Game Plan
　　Communication is a social skill, not a technical one[1]. At the same time, the communication of technically complex geologic information is typically more of a challenge than the geologic investigation itself. As professional-level geologists, authors embraced a university experience that invoked self discipline in regards to unsupervised study, self-tuition and passion-motivated research. Indeed, where geologists must have full legal registration (e.g. most state-level jurisdictions in the US and Canada) to practice in the public domain, points covertable continued education has been mandatory for some years. Unless authors have been additionally trained in Public Relations, or have a natural aptitude or are supported by a media-relations specialist, why would authors presuppose that authors have the necessary skill set to communicate, to desired effect, with non-geologists? Authors can defeat ourselves by our possible predisposition to chauvinism toward geologic sciences, arrogance, conceit and shear intolerance of another person’s viewpoint.
　　In interfacing with the public, the audience will perceive authors as actors first and geologists second. Credibility means openness, balance with and tolerance with other’s agendas, along with empathy for those who are about to hear, for example, some rather bad geologically-based news. Authors therefore need both to know ourselves and to teach ourselves.
　　The persona that authors project via tone-of-voice, facial expression, body language and posture, which will also include how authors costume ourselves for the occasion (image-projection), can absolutely matter. The venue/room must be conducive(seating/hot/cold/drafty). Are the attendees likely to be hungry when they arrive ; if yes, feed them.
　　Beyond these fundamental facets, effective communication is facilitated by the use of clear, simple non-technical language [1]. Visual tools are especially effective with a non technical audience or with other non-geologist professionals. By the same token, beware of the corresponding pitfalls that are quite wonderfully highlighted by Lehr [3]. Confidence and consistency of delivery are needed. According to Livermore et al. [1], the good communicator must also be a good listener, using silence, reflection, paraphrasing and non-verbal clues or prompts.
　　Let authors examine three styles of communication[9]:
　　Unidirectional. In this style, the speaker addresses an audience. Relatively successful outcomes generally occur in professor/student and teacher/pupil situations. This relationship is analogous to 10-pin bowling, where the pins are entirely static awaiting a delivery from a bowler. In contrast, in a contentious issue scenario, the audience members are not static like the 10-pin and their exactly predictable areal pattern. The dynamic nature of the audience, versus static precision-deployed pins or pupils, means that a unidirectional style of communication has a high potential to be unsuccessful.
　　Dialogue. A superior approach would be to have some form of dialogue. An analogy would be table tennis. One person (the server) puts the conversational ball into play and the other gets into position to receive and respond appropriately. At once, it is firstly crucial to note that it takes more concentration and skill to receive than to serve because, while the speaker knows where the message is going, the listener does not. As well, although the arriving ball (the message) may appear to be entirely benign, it may have a deceptive spin. There are several flaws in this style of communication, two which are:
　　Table tennis occurs in a controlled environment with a completely predictable platform (table), whereas issue-driven interpersonal communication may occur in an environment where volatile emotions prevail;
　　One player wins, the other player loses. In successful dialogue, both sides win.
　　Transaction. Optimally, a transaction takes place. If authors consider an analogy with charades, the interchange can contain both competitive and cooperative elements simultaneously. The mime player imparts a silent mini-drama, while the observer must perceive by visual clues, complemented by trial-and-error answers, exactly what the silent action is conveying. If the observer is successful, then the actor automatically has been successful too.
　　Optimally, there would be no serious questions because, if you did your homework on your audience, prepared a way forward, conducted some behind-the-scenes dialogue and executed your communications effectively, you have arrived at the definitive answer. The answer may be the lesser of two evils (e.g. evacuation versus staying and experiencing the wrath of impending geologic forces).
　　If the communication is early, the audience is accepting and appropriately responsive, wonderful. Why then do authors need any communication tools? Well, if authors wish to attach the adjective professional to ourselves, nothing is left to chance. A true professional will be well-prepared in all the above areas, rather than “winging it”.
　　5. Detractions
　　5.1 Abuse of Geological Sciences
　　An important detraction that is seldom, if ever, overtly acknowledged by scientists is the misuse of geology as a means to an end. As an example, let authors consider a full-scale EIA (environmental impact assessment). A given proponent for a proposed major industrial enterprise will need to prepare an EIA that addresses among other disciplines, detailed study of air emissions, noise, traffic loading, archaeological resources, vegetation, wildlife, hydrology, geology(mineral resource delineation and economics) and hydrogeology (groundwater resources and groundwater quality). Such major proposed developments commonly encounter interjection by the proponent’s nemesis, the chronic intervener. Now, any proposed project that is economically worthwhile and, on paper, environmentally well thought out, should be able to stand up to reasonable checks and balances. In other words, if the proposed enterprise cannot withstand reasonable scrutiny, it probably should not be approved by the governing regulator. Thus, intervention by concerned local citizens and other project juxtaposed stakeholders has value in testing the proposed project as an environmentally sound enterprise. In fact, intervention can ultimately contribute to the identification of improvements to environmental content, which the regulator will incorporate in terms-and-conditions to the approval.
　　Conversely, however, what if an intervener represents an organization that adopts extreme positions or has some form of insidious agenda? To that intervener, does it really matter if the proposed enterprise can be derailed on its projected air emissions versus impact to groundwater (hydrogeology)? Thus, such an intervener will probably not assail the strong points of the EIA-based application, but will attack either: (1) Perceived socio-economic or science discipline weak points and (2) Natural phenomena that can be comparatively difficult to defend definitively. In this regard, geologic conditions, being largely hidden, can be especially difficult to demonstrate in an unequivocal way. Without drilling an inordinate number of testholes, complemented by downhole and intensive surface geophysics, how would one characterize the lithostratigraphy and hydrogeology of a deep subsurface fluviatile-based play (e.g. Athabasca oil sands) with absolute resolution?
　　5.2 Uncertainty
　　Dealing with uncertainty is to deal with a dilemma. How can author convince someone to act upon my costly technically-driven recommendations if author have to acknowledge that author’s contention is burdened with some form of spatio-temporal uncertainty as to the need to action? Could author simply strengthen author’s sales pitch by not admitting to the inherent uncertainty? To get action, uncertainty can simply be removed from the table [1]. Such self-serving removal of uncertainty, however, is conducive to the adoption of extreme positions (the extreme polarization that surrounds the media-level climate debate). In their chapter on the Communication of Uncertainty, Livermore et al. [1] conclude that uncertainty should be accurately and appropriately conveyed, even where the objective is to prompt action rather than just to inform. They observe that a wide range of stakeholders, including scientists, policy-makers, lobby groups and the media have occasionally overstated and understated uncertainties to make particular discussions or policies seem more appealing. Thus, uncertainty can be exploited in either direction.
　　The extreme position is to adopt a stance whereby one claims that the outcome of an issue is a “given” or is a “fact” [1]. However, although this approach conveniently circumvents uncertainty, an interim discovery of uncertainty will likely promote distrust of the messenger. For the geologist, the contribution for geologically-underpinned issues is to facilitate proper framing of the issue.
　　5.3 Higher Education
　　Yes, higher education can be a detraction! Although perhaps counter intuitive, higher education can actually work against the effective communication of geologic science. This is another reason why authors have to know ourselves at a deeply searching level. Basically, the tendency for highly educated people is to use lots of arguments to support their case or position: “Surely the more points of argument author can float, the stronger my position?” However, convincing an audience is not about using weigh-scales, because an astute opponent will try to defeat you on the basis of your weakest point. An optimum approach can be to use one strong point of argument, and this leads authors into the actual battleground: The negotiation or transaction as discussed below.
　　5.4 Transactions and Negotiations
　　Suppose you have an opponent who has one potentially strong argument, an argument that may in fact be valid but is highly detrimental to your position. Given that your opponent’s argument is a strong one, the best approach is not to attack it directly, but instead to ask questions about it; lots of questions. Questions such as, “if authors adopted your proposal (e.g., proposed inaction), how would that pan out if this geologically-triggered event was to indeed occur?”, or“your proposal will require funding of five million dollars, authors only have access to three million dollars, where will the other two million dollars come from?” If your opponent cannot answer equivalent questions satisfactorily, you may not have to convince the other attendees at all. On the other hand, if your opponent does actually provide a plausible or otherwise workable solution, then he or she does indeed have a valid point; in which case, why attack here? Maybe he or she is actually right. When a proponent launches a proposal or riposte counter to your position, this is the worst moment to launch your counterproposal. If you choose to do so, basically what you, in effect, have just said is, “Author have not heard what you have to say” or “Author have not read your proposal, but here’s author’s proposal”. When your opponent’s proposal or position is floated, your entire and immediate focus should be on that proposal; acknowledge it, debate it, and ask lots of questions about it. Great negotiators ask lots of questions. Your exuberance for your own thesis will have to be reigned in, for now; your turn will come. Ultimately, authors have to deal with our opponent’s reticence, intransigence or technically-supported arguments. Authors need to ultimately understand, and appropriately empathize with our counterpart’s position. There is no quick fix; remember, the issue is complicated, contentious and important in some way(otherwise there is no issue in the first instance). So, given the complexity, contentiousness and importance of the issue, then authors need to be as thorough and professional as possible in addressing every facet and nuance, including our detractor’s position.
　　6. Conclusions
　　Geologists have a vital role to play in the proper framing of those events and issues that are ultimately controlled by geologic forces. Such proper geologic contextualization is essential to the conveyance of a balanced perspective. A balanced viewpoint, when coupled with openness and honesty, will engender trust, setting the scene for adequately-informed decision making.
　　Communication of issues should adopt a dialogue approach. Dialogue should extend into the realm of negotiation. In any true negotiation that has a lasting positive effect, both sides in the transaction must win to at least a minimum level of satisfaction in some sufficient way. To that end, it is essential, while in the negotiation process, to find a way for your counterpart in the transaction to also win in some tangible manner. Intellectual exchange of one’s stance via empathy will likely be of assistance in this regard.
　　References
　　[1] D.G.E. Livermore, C.P.G. Pereira, B. Marker, Communicating Environmental Geoscience, Geological Society, Special Publication, London, 2008, Vol. 305, p. 214.
　　[2] J. Lehr, Let there be stoning, Groundwater 23 (2) (1985) 162-165.
　　[3] J. Lehr, Promise me that you will never show me a slide like this again, Groundwater 27 (3) (1989) 298-300.
　　[4] R. Bates, J. Jackson, Glossary of Geology, 2nd ed., American Geological Institute, Falls Church, Va, 1980, p. 677.
　　[5] A. Hallam, P.B. Wignall, Mass Extinctions and Their Aftermath, Oxford University Press, U.K., 1997, p. 320.
　　[6] L. Bernard, F. Doig, C. Etteridge, H. Jackson, C. Jacobson, D. Nixon, et al., Geologica, Millenium House Pty Ltd., Elanora Heights, NWS, Australia, 2007, p. 576.
　　[7] M. Williams, A.M. Haywood, F.J. Gregory, D.N. Schmidt, Deep Time Perspectives on Climate Change, The Micropalaeontological Society, Geological Society, Special Publications, London, 2007, p. 589.
　　[8] P. Konigshof, Devonian Change: Case Studies in Palaeogeography and Palaeoecology, Geological Society, Special Publication 314, London, 2009, p. 298.
　　[9] E. Griffin, A First Look at Communication Theory, 7th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 2008, p. 486.