 Four issues, not bury people's psyches in a lot of complex issues. It's critical that we take it out of the world of graphs and charts, and communicate it in a vocabulary that the general public understands. Presenting climate science is a real challenge because it's such a complicated issue. It's like 200 years of science and it's so interrelated, it's multidisciplinary. So how do you boil that down to messages and explanations that the public can understand? Global warming is really complicated because scientists need to work really hard to make their science sticky and accessible to the public. Climate change is super complex. It's a hard issue to cover. Most people, and this is just thinking about the United States dynamics. Most people are thinking about other issues. Most people are thinking about what are we going to do about Donald Trump? It is hard. I spend all day every day trying to understand how the climate system works and there are thousands of people that are working on it full-time. It's also really difficult to communicate effectively. The difficulty with climate change as a subject is that it's an accumulation of weather events over long periods of time, right? It's not something you necessarily see. That's a colorless, odorless gas. The other greenhouse gases are also colorless and odorless. They go up in the atmosphere. They mix around the global atmosphere and the effect, the energy balance of the planet and the climate and the weather that we experience. So it's an inherently difficult problem to see as an individual connection. And you also don't necessarily see it because it happens in this medium called air that's transparent that appears to our mammalian minds as having no weight and no volume. But there's air around us all the time. The climate is happening in that medium, so how do you bring that story across? There's another thing, too, which is that the science has made much more clear that people now are being affected by this. Just five, ten years ago, it was all about your future generations, equity and future generations. Well, you know what? Humans are not built to think about future generations. We're not built to think about tomorrow. I want the sandwich that's in front of me today and not worry about, like, the slight increase in heart attack risk over time, so we're just not good at that. As science communicators, it's really important to recognize that even if we are doing a good job communicating the science, that work can be undone by misinformation. When we have to explain these concepts to policymakers and to the public, there it becomes difficult, and that is a challenge, because the challenge is to really say, why is this relevant for the question whether or not man is influencing indeed climate, and to what extent, quantitatively, that is taking place. We're facing two challenges. One is to, first of all, explain the concepts, but then also to convey the numbers and the quantification of that, which is an essential element of the assessment to the public and the policy makers. You know, I go to a lot of science meetings, and I see a lot of really smart people present the results of their research, and the visual representation of that research is almost always a graph, which is time versus one or more variables, right? And most people look at graphs, and right away, they get tombstones in their eyes. They go, oh my God, that's like science class when I was in high school. I hated that stuff. God, that's a graph. Oh my God, I don't want to look at it. But scientists need to be aware of what words mean to them and what they mean to the public, to hopefully get them more thoughtful. Another example is positive feedback. Scientists talk about this as a reinforcing feedback, which is a bad thing usually in climate change. The global warming happenings, Arctic sea ice melts, that just causes more heat to be absorbed by the ocean, and that causes more warming. So that's not a good thing. To the general public, positive feedback. If someone gives you positive feedback, I say, great, I thank you for that. People don't have the information they need to evaluate what needs to be done and what doesn't need to be done. I mean, it's like going to a mechanic and them telling you that your breaks are fine when, you know, they're completely worn through. You know, this is where we're heading for a cliff and we don't have breaks. I think that the scientists are a special kind of group of thinkers. And sometimes they're not down to earth. And they're not able to communicate on a common language level. I heard a social scientist say the other day that about 10% of the human brain is devoted to verbal capacity, and about 30% of the human brain is devoted to visual perception. So when you can show climate change in a visual form, when you can bring the abstract to life, then it's very, very powerful. It's critical that we take out the core issues, not bury people's psyches. The worst thing we should do is to dumb down our results. But what we can do in every case is to distill the one or two simple messages that our results have. What it is that we've observed, what this observation means in terms of how the world works, and what this finding about how the world works actually matters for people out there. And if we can connect those three boxes together, I think we've done a really good job. We've solved the climate crisis. The scientists are telling us, Mother Nature is telling us, we now can solve the climate crisis with the new cheaper renewable energy technologies, and we will solve it. We're seeing that in Paris.