Evidence Squared
Summary: Evidence Squared explores the science of science communication, the evidence into talking about evidence. Co-hosts are John Cook, a cognitive scientist at the Center for Climate Change Communication and Peter Jacobs, a PhD student studying climate and its impacts at George Mason University.
- Visit Website
- RSS
- Artist: John Cook, Peter Jacobs
Podcasts:
We talk to David Roberts from Vox about the intractability of conservatives on climate change and whether polarization is something to be avoided or embraced. Links for this episode Outside magazine on Roberts unplugging Niskanen Center podcast on polarization and
After a summer, er… hiatus… we discuss a recent Nature Geoscience paper by Millar et al. and some factually untrue claims (not all of them by contrarians!) leading to an epic communications own goal. Links from this episode Original Nature
Part 2 of our interview with stand-up comedian Robert Mac on telling Mormon jokes in Utah, the tension between accuracy and comedy, herd mentality and the different types of laughs. Special thanks to Matt Dundas and Grassroots Comedy DC for their support
Stand-up comedian Robert Mac gives a master class on comedy and story-telling, explaining how to show-don’t-tell, lay breadcrumbs, funnel your stories from wide to narrow, and understand your audience. Special thanks to Matt Dundas and Grassroots Comedy DC for their support in
We talk to climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe about cheerfully responding to climate misinformation, finding shared values with your audience, finding hope in climate solutions, and denial mansplaining. Links from this episode Global Weirding YouTube channel Fortune 50 greatest leaders of
Here is the second half of John Cook and Peter Jacobs’ interview with Oren Cass. They discuss alarmism, science denial and the consensus among economists on climate action. The podcast episode is a truncated version of the full interview which
John Cook and Peter Jacobs interview Oren Cass, after Oren and John exchanged articles in the National Review. Peter geeks out about the 2012 Presidential election (Oren was part of the Romney campaign) then they have a vigorous debate about the best way
John Cook and Peter Jacobs critique a National Review article by Oren Cass that misrepresents their 2016 paper on the scientific consensus on climate change. They discuss the techniques of climate science denial, focusing on the technique of fake experts that
Communication researcher Emily Vraga joins us as co-host again to discuss science comedy. She explains her research into how comedy can increase credibility, engagement and reduce perceived aggression. We also critique a variety of examples of climate comedy from TV and
Climate scientist Sarah Myhre talks about her scrappy science communication: how she draws on expert witness training, hands-on experience, human emotions and transparency to build resilience and effectively communicate the science of climate change on ski slopes, social media, and
In our first “Breaking Debunking” mini-episode, John Cook and Peter Jacobs explain how the carbon cycle works (the CO2 we breath out originally came from the air) and debunk William Happer’s myth from CNN that breathing adds CO2 to the atmosphere.
John Cook and Peter Jacobs join the March for Science in Washington D.C. They speak to the marchers about how far they came to attend the march, why it’s so important to stand up for science and how else we
Last month, the Heartland Institute sent a climate denial booklet to 25,000 teachers around the US. We look at the why and how of this book. What is the chief motivation for the book’s misinformation and what are the techniques they employ to
Kim Cobb talks about her rousing speech supporting science at a street rally in San Francisco. She also talks about her broader efforts to communicate climate science, the important role of diverse voices in science communication and her research into
We review the House Committee’s hearing on climate science and the scientific method. We explore the conflict between the Republicans’ supposed dismay at the drop in public trust in science, and their deliberate efforts to erode public trust in science.