It is widely acknowledged that we are facing a climate and ecological crisis. Scientists increasingly warn us of our role in the emergency, telling us that our responses to date are far too limited. This mismatch between the dangers we face and the action we take is partly a problem of science communication. Many have criticised scientists for being poor communicators, unable to get their message across to non-experts and those who have stresses in their lives.

To address this critical global threat, Dr Cottey suggests a four-register model of communication, meaning a model that uses four varieties of language. This could have the potential to engage different types of people, with varying degrees of scientific literacy and differing lifestyles.

In 1992, the Union of Concerned Scientists produced a leaflet entitled World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity. It opened with the blunt warning that “human beings and the natural world are on a collision course”. It asserted that the environment was suffering critical stress and that we needed to curb population and consumption to address it.

In 2017, 25 years after the original publication, a new article was released, named World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice. It detailed the knowledge and research that had been developed in the intervening years, including information on global ecology and human influences on climate.

The core of the article included graphs showing the course of nine indicators of global ecological stress, from 1960 to around 2015, and all but one of them showed marked increases of stress. The adverse trends were roughly the same after 1992 as before, showing that the scientists’ original warnings were not heeded.

Since those first two communications, there has been an increasing flow of warnings from scientists. The warnings go beyond technical accounts of the scientific climate consensus; they aim to make humanity aware of what this knowledge means and how it should impact our politics and the way we behave as individuals.

By the time the Second Notice was issued, it was clear that we were not sufficiently addressing the issues of sustainable living. For many, the warnings were unwelcome. Some deployed psychological defences, distracting themselves or even denying the disagreeable news. Others accepted the warnings, but fell into inertia, not knowing how to respond to overwhelming global, abstract and remote dangers. Indeed, the path is long between the primary research conducted by scientists and the daily lives of ordinary people, who may be dealing with immediate concerns such as poverty or ill health.

Some objected to the Second Notice for being ‘top-down’ and saying very little about poverty. Its cautionary assertions were perceived as finger-wagging, and difficult to reconcile with ordinary life. It was also accused of addressing symptoms rather than root causes, normalising the Western lifestyle and neglecting prevailing inequalities.

Dr Cottey argues that the critics don’t acknowledge what has worked well in these communications. In terms of technical accuracy, the scientists’ warnings have a good track record, and no warnings have been shown to be false alarms. Even in terms of their reception, the warnings have been successful in some ways, as the inadequacy of business-as-usual has been widely exposed.

Ultimately, however, Dr Cottey argues that scientists cannot be blamed for the inadequate response. Scientists’ job is to be highly informed specialists, who conduct research and present it accurately for their peers to build upon. They are not trained to present simplified accounts to people who may have little interest in science. The important task of wider engagement lies outside the skill set of most scientists. But those multi-skilled scientists who are cutting-edge researchers as well as exceptional communicators should still be supported and encouraged!

Dr Cottey therefore suggests four registers of science communication. The first is the specialised technical language used in the practice of primary research. The next register is the language used in the dissemination of specialists’ thinking to non-specialist scientists beyond their circle. An example of this activity is the writing of review articles. The third register is the language used for those who are explicitly engaged in public affairs. The bar for being in this group is low, and people who follow the news and vote would qualify.

Finally, the fourth register is language used for discussion with the hardest-to-reach groups – those who face obstacles to becoming explicitly engaged in ecological issues. These obstacles may be short-term, such as lack of necessities, medium-term, such as chronic overwork, or long-term, such as consumerist acculturation. Removing these obstacles presents the most difficult challenge in the entire project.

A major part of this fourth register involves developing everyday and empathetic language to discuss these issues. There is already a shift away from scientific terms such as ‘ecological’ and towards phrases such as ‘nature crisis’. Replacing formal language in the fourth register with accessible, everyday language may be a significant contribution to popular outreach.

It is vital that we find an effective way to communicate the urgency of the climate crisis. Rather than blaming scientists or expecting all of them to become expert communicators, Dr Cottey suggests a new model. By working with a range of thinkers and actors on four different registers, we stand the best chance of inspiring action on this world-changing issue.