cc  >> Dominique Broussard: Good  evening, everybody.  Let's get started with, in our  series for the university forum,  summer 2009, "Communicating  Controversial Science."  Tonight we're really happy to  have with us Steve Ackerman.  Steve's a professor of  atmospheric and oceanic science  at University of Wisconsin  Madison.  He joined the faculty in 1992.  His research interests center on  understanding how changes in the  --- balance affect and are  affected by changes in other  climate variables such as  clouds, aerosol, water vapor,  and surface properties.  He's the director of the  Cooperative Institute for  Meteorological -- Studies, maybe  he can tell us a little more  about this later on, which was  established to cement a  relationship between the  university and the National  Oceanic Atmospheric  Administration, so really an  outreach, I would say, type of  collaboration, too.  The institute's mission includes  developing new techniques that  increase the value and usability  of weather forecast, primarily  by employing weather satellite  data.  He along with Jonathan Martin  are known as the weather guys on  Wisconsin Public Radio, so  please join me in welcoming  Steve Ackerman.  (applause)  >> Steve Ackerman: Okay, well,  thank you.  Yeah, so I'm one of the weather  guys, how many people have  actually heard the weather guys  on the radio?  All right, good. 

 Okay, that's good.  Let me ask you something else,  too.  So I'm gonna allow you to put  yourselves in one of two  categories, okay?  So you need to be one or the  other.  One is a, what I call a  scientist, so your main thing  that you do is science, and then  the other category is the main  thing you do is either outreach  or journalism or educating the  public, all right?  Those are your two choices.  So, who's a scientist?  Okay.  And let's clap, so people up  front can hear.  So who's a scientist?  Clap.  And then, who's a  journalism-type?  All right, it's good.  So I'm gonna talk to you today  about talking to the public  about weather and climate,  that's been my title, as you  well know.  I've added this subtitle:  "Personal Strategies for  Effective Communication."  And I emphasize the word  "personal" here, because I'm  gonna be telling you about what  I do, and the perspective I come  from and the things that I have  learned. 

 And I realized I added this  subtitle after I practiced this  talk a couple of times because I  suddenly started to sound like I  really knew what I was talking  about, and I don't think I  really know what I'm talking  about.  But I know what I'm talking  about when I'm talking about  what I do.  So if you think that I'm all  wrong, just raise your hand and  say, "I think you're wrong.  You got it all wrong."  'Cause maybe I do.  That wouldn't surprise me,  actually.  And so in fact, if you do have  questions as I go through this,  bring them up right away, and  I'll try and address them right  there.  And I'll keep track of the time  and if it looks like we're  getting way too over time and  too many questions, I'll just  cut you off.  I learned that from Larry  Mueller.  How to cut people off politely.  All right, so here's the outline  of my talk. 

 One, I'm gonna tell you a little  bit about the motivation that I  have, why I do what I do.  Particularly with regard to  communicating to the public.  Then I'm gonna talk about who I  communicate with.  Then I'm gonna talk a little bit  about what my objectives are  when I do these communications,  so you're getting a sense of  hopefully who I am from these  first few things.  Along the way I'm gonna pepper  this with examples, explicit  examples to kind of make the  point.  And then I'm gonna end up doing  two things, one is giving  typical tips, and then what my  rules are.  And the typical tips, I want you  to be thinking about, maybe if  you're from a scientist, these  are the things as scientists  that you're typically told on  when to talk to the media or get  research, so things like, "The  Scientist's Guide to Talking to  the Media. "  These are the type of tips the  scientists are getting.  And for the journalists, I think  it's gonna be kind of  interesting for you to see what  we're being told, how we  interact with it, with you all.  And then I'm gonna tell you some  of the things that I think are  missing in these things, based  on my personal experience.  All right, so that's the outline  that we're gonna do. 

 First, what's my motivation.  So I'm gonna begin with a story.  That begins when I was a junior  in college.  Back in 1975.  I hung around with a good friend  of mine, Pete Pokonia, we used  to call him Bach, he was an  artist.  One of the things I learned  about artists, any artists here?  Clap.  All right, I love artists.  Because artists are like  scientists, they make really  careful observations.  And I was a physics major, so it  seemed to me artists, when they  observed things they didn't  understand, they always came to  me.  And that resulted in one day,  Bach coming into my bedroom at  2:00 in the morning and dragging  me out of bed into his car to  take me someplace, which I  didn't know where we were going,  and he wouldn't tell me. 

 He just kept telling me, "You  gotta see this, you gotta see  this!"  I was, "Where are we going? "  He wouldn't tell me.  About a half an hour outside of  town, he pulls over, it's dark,  it's pitch black outside, we're  in this glade of this forest,  and he jumps out of the car,  excited, and I get out of the  car a little anxious, is this  some kind of secret society  thing here?  What's going on?  And he's really excited and he  goes, "Well?"  I go, "Well, what?"  And he points up.  And I look up, and the sky is  one fire.  There's just red and green  curtains going back and forth.  And it, I couldn't believe I  actually didn't see it, because  it was so bright.  And my jaw just drops, and I go,  "Oh!"  And he goes, "What is it?"  And I said, "It's the northern  lights."  And he goes, "I knew you would  know!  I knew you would know!"  And got so excited in  anticipation, he goes, "Can you  tell me why?"  And I said, "Yes."  And literally, he starts  jumping up and down around the  car, saying, "I knew you would,  I knew you would!"  And we end up spending the  rest of the evening laying down  on the top of his car, watching  the northern lights until the  sun rose.  And I took away two things from  that experience.  The first one was that, it's  really cool to explain things to  people.  The second thing was, if you  ever see the northern lights,  you must wake somebody up and  bring them out there and show  them.  'Cause the northern lights is  really cool. 

 So that's part of my motivation  of what I do.  And again, as I look back at my  career, this is like a little  thing that happened back then,  but it actually was like a  ripple effect that still  influences what I do today.  And so my motivation is a couple  of things.  One, I do want to inform people  about science and scientific  thinking, the public, I want to  talk to them about it.  How do you think like a  scientist, how do scientists  solve problems?  I also believe that it's part of  my responsibility, and a lot of  scientists will tell you this  and I really do believe it.  I get a lot of funding from the  national, from the government.  And so I feel it's my duty to  feed that back into the public,  the Wisconsin Idea.  The borders of the university  are the borders of the state and  beyond.  Also going back to the story  with Bach, I get satisfaction  from expressing my ideas, and  the ideas of getting recognition  or applause from the audience.  That's good, it feeds us. 

 Thank you!  I like applause.  (laughter)  Sometimes I get it,  sometimes I don't.  And then the final things is  that I learn.  The things that I've found, I'll  give a couple examples of this,  as I interact with the public  because the public is so  observant, I actually learn  things from them.  So that's another motivation  that I have.  So who do I communicate with?  Here's kind of the group of  people that I obviously  communicate with.  One is my peers, and I do that  through scientific papers,  conference presentations and  such.  I do that with students through  some online stuff, or through  research meetings or through  teaching classes.  I do this of course with my  family.  And of course, the public. 

 And the way that I do this with  the public or publics, is  through the radio show, the  Larry Mueller show, the weather  guys, we go on once a month,  public events, public lectures I  give like at the arboretum, a  couple of months ago we went  there.  Newspaper column, we just  started a newspaper column, Jon  and I, and I'll talk a little  bit more about that as we go  along.  As well as informal  interactions, when I'm on a  plane, for example, somebody  asks me, "What do you do?"  I interact with them,  sometimes, sometimes I tell them  things that I do that sound  really boring, because I don't  want to talk to them.  So those are the people I  communicate with.  And I'm gonna ask you all this,  and that is, is there something  common between these groups?  And so, I'm gonna give you 30  seconds, because I like people  to talk, too, it's talking with  the public.  So talk it over, and I want you  to come up with, I'm gonna give  you 30 seconds, I'm gonna time  it.  I want you to come up with any  ideas of what you see, are there  common things between these  groups.  Talk it over, I want to hear  some noise, too.  First talk it over, and then  I'll ask you to yell them out.  Just trying to be loud to get it  going. 

 All right, yeah, let's just yell  it out, forget the talking.  So, people, that's one thing in  common, anything else?  People, obviously.  >> The all want to know the same  thing.  >> Steve Ackerman: They all want  to know the same thing.  Do I communicate to them the  same way, you think?  Probably not.  >> (inaudible)  >> Steve Ackerman:  They could be numbers of what?  >> (inaudible)  >> Steve Ackerman: They could be  members of more than one group.  That's right, my family could  certainly be a peer, although  they're not.  They could be a student.  >> (inaudible)  >> Steve Ackerman: They have  something to share with me,  too, right.  I'm gonna learn something with  them. 

 Anything else?  >> (inaudible)  >> Steve Ackerman: Science  affects their lives  in similar ways.  Yeah, these are all good things,  and I didn't have an answer.  Come on in.  So yeah.  The other thing that, what's not  common about them, what's  different about them a little  bit?  Just go ahead and yell it out.  What might be different in the  way that I communicate with  them?  >> (inaudible)  >> Steve Ackerman: Some know me,  some don't, and same, I know  them and they don't know me...  you know what I mean!  >> Hierarchy?  >> Steve Ackerman: Hierarchy.  Who's on top, I wonder.  I'm sorry?  >> (inaudible)  >> Steve Ackerman: Different  languages, different scopes,  right, they're different  audiences for me.  Right?  And so that's one of the things  that I always think of when I'm  gonna interact with somebody,  is, who's the audience that I'm  talking with. 

 And so, how do you think I find  out who the audience is?  What are ways to find out who   your audience is?  I'm sorry, google them.  Right.  Over the radio, how do you  think, yeah that's a tough one.  >> (inaudible)  >> Steve Ackerman: Yeah,  demographics, diaries, read  papers about who NPR says  their audience is.  Any other ideas?  >> (inaudible)  >> Steve Ackerman: I'm sorry?  >> (inaudible)  >> Steve Ackerman: Sometimes  your boss will tell you  who you are,  you're gonna go interview with  this newspaper because we have  this experiment here and they  want to talk to somebody.  Ask them?  Yep.  So let's see, I'm gonna go  through the bullets now that I  have and we'll see how many...  Poll them, ask them, that's  kind of what I did with you guys  right away, who's scientists,  who's journalists.  I can ask the person who invited  me to talk.  So I certainly asked Andy and  Dominique, who are these people?  What are they gonna be like?  I can guess, which I often do  particularly in a public  lecture, and a lot of times I  will guess wrong. 

 Which is always very  interesting.  Get published surveys, if I'm  going into a K-12 to talk about  clouds, I'm gonna go look at,  what are they supposed to know  about clouds?  What kind of background do they  have?  And the fourth thing, which I  don't know if anybody picked up  on is, you discover by  listening.  These are conversations with  people, you gotta listen to  people to know really where  they're coming from.  So that's the other way I find  out about my audience.  All right, so again, I'm gonna  pepper with some examples, so  I'm gonna talk a little bit  about an example with the radio  show.  So that's me up there, I don't  have a pointer, but you can  probably see me.  To my, that would be my left, is  Jon Martin.  And of course Larry Mueller is  over there behind the desk, and  you can't see Jim, he's in the  booth, he's the producer.  So Larry's had the show forever,  Jon and I have been regular  guests, we're on the last Monday  of every month.  If you have a weather question,  go on then at 11:45, call in and  we'll answer your question. 

 Not necessarily get it right,  but we'll answer it anyway.  And so one way that I, I was  wondering this question, too,  how do I find out about who this  NPR audience is?  You know, I've talked to Larry  and Jim can give me some papers  about what it is, but one thing  I decided to do was to go  through all of our old tapes.  Going back to, actually we  started the show back, being  guests, in 1998.  And so this is the analysis.  I went back and listened to  every tape, and counted how many  callers we had and what topics  they were asking questions  about.  And so this is the first one  that I'm gonna show you, which  is plotting the number of  callers on the Y axis there, and  then as a function of date,  beginning back in this case, I  think we go back into mid-1999.  And I ended here in 2006, I also  have 2007 and 2008 but I haven't  completed those analyses yet, so  I haven't put it on here.  But there's a couple of things  you can see here.  What's the first good thing that  you see?  It going up, right?  There's a trend.  Going up, we're getting more  listeners. 

 Of course, we don't know whether  or not this statistic is  significant, and we don't know  if it's because the show's  getting more popular, or because  we're getting better at  answering questions, so we're a  shorter amount of time.  Actually, the shows, after you  take out news and everything,  they run typically from 33  minutes to 36 minutes.  So basically, if you do the  divisions here, roughly we're  talking about three minutes to  answer somebody's question.  Not a lot of time, right?  But this is one of the pieces of  information that I have, that if  somebody asks me a complex  question, I'd better be able to  answer it in three minutes.  The other thing that I learned,  and this turned out to be pretty  valuable down the road,  particularly when you start  talking about climate change and  things, is that many of the  callers are giving us personal  stories.  So I'm not talking about people  saying, "I saw this movie," or  "I read this."  I'm talking about people who  are saying,I experienced this,  can you please explain it to me?  We get a lot of those, and of  course, some shows we only get  one or two, but a lot of times  we get five to eight people  calling, so almost half of our  callers are telling us something  personal.  They want a personal story  answer.  We get a lot of topics, I have  this in a spreadsheet, and every  time I go to a new show, I have  to add a new topic almost.  It gets complicated.  But there's some interesting  things about the topics. 

 One of which is, the number of  times we get lightning and  thunder.  And here's an example, where  sometimes you can see, like  right after December 6, 1999,  there's a period there where we  don't get any questions at all.  But sometimes when we get  questions, we get a lot of  questions.  We get the six, seven, eight  callers are asking about  lightning.  Which I found very interesting.  Jon and I knew this from  anecdotal information, but the  data actually shows that.  And when I showed this, I got  real excited about this, I  showed this to my wife, who's a  folklorist.  She just looked at it and said,  "Yeah, you idiot.  Of course.  Because stories beget stories."  As soon as somebody calls  about lightning, the next person  wants to call and tell their  lightning story. 

 How many people have a lightning  story?  Clap if you have.  You guys don't have lightning  stories?  You guys gotta get out in the  world.  Okay.  A lot of people have lightning  stories and they want them  explained.  And once it, when somebody calls  they think, oh!  I've got a story.  I can share that.  Interestingly enough, I also  broke it out by global warming,  and notice the scale has  changed, from lightning we're  going from zero up to twelve,  for global warming, we're going  up to six.  Five is the max.  Not a lot of people are calling  about global warming.  Now again, it'd be interesting  to do these last two years, but  in 2006, when did Gore's movie  come out?  2006, right?  So it's around that time that,  it's not like people aren't  talking about it, people don't  call. 

 Every show between June and  November, I would, when we first  started doing this, I would get  the latest from the climate  researchers in our building  about hurricanes.  Because hurricanes are  interesting, those are real  weather phenomena.  And how many calls do we get?  Hardly any.  Two weeks after Katrina, we got  four calls about hurricanes,  that's all we get.  That's the maximum.  Why do you think we get so few  hurricanes?  It doesn't affect us, right,  it's not a personal experience  that people have.  We live in Wisconsin, where we  get lightning and thunder.  So that's where most of our  questions are.  And tornadoes, we actually get a  lot of tornado questions, I  actually broke that out  separately.  I should add them together,  that's a good idea to do the  severe weather impact. 

 That's a way that I learn about  our audience.  Figure out who they are, and  that actually helps me, because  I know now if I'm gonna explain  a complex topic, I'm gonna try  in some way relate it back to  the personal story, because  that's what people are  interested in.  And you journalism people  probably all know that.  Scientists, we don't know that.  All right, so what's my  objective when I interact with  various audiences.  And these are generally the four  things I'm thinking about, you  know, am I trying to inform them  about something?  Am I trying to persuade them  about something?  Am I trying to just entertain  them about something?  Or am I trying to learn,  personally?  And usually it's a combination  of these four things, but let's  just go through one at a time,  and I'll talk, what I'm thinking  about as I go through each one  of these four things.  So for example, if I figure that  I'm trying to just inform a  public audience about something,  about their question or  whatever, these are things I'm  thinking about.  I'm trying to identify a target  concept to explain.  I interact with them, I ask them  questions, trying to identify  what it is that they're really  trying to learn.  So I can inform them about it. 

 I try to think about good ideas,  commonly-known things that are  good to explain it, so lightning  now, because we get so many  lightning calls, I have a 30  second schpiel, how to explain  lightning.  And I relate it to the shock you  get when you touch a door.  30 seconds, boom, I can tell you  everything you want to know  about lightning.  I try to make it memorable, and  usually we try and do that by  doing common experiences, like  getting shocks from doors, or  tying it back to a personal  story.  And the other thing, and the  most important thing, I think,  when I'm trying to inform  somebody is to listen.  Right, you listen to what  they're saying, 'cause if you  don't know what they want to  know, you can't satisfy them,  you can't tell them.  So let me give you an example,  and I couldn't find this clip,  but it was a question about  lightning that a caller had.  So the caller had a question  about lightning, he wanted to  know that when you see a bolt of  lightning, he said that he had  heard that when you see that  bolt of lightning, it's not one  bolt, but there's actually a  whole bunch of bolts inside  there and is that true.  And Jon and I look at each other  and we raise our eyebrows,  'cause we're thinking, here come  the calls about lightning!  And we didn't really want to  talk about lightning, we wanted  to talk about hurricanes, 'cause  it was hurricane season.  And so I had my 30 second thing  all ready to answer, but before  I gave it to him, I said to him,  "Yes, that's true."  When you see a bolt of  lightning, it's not just one  bolt. 

 Our human eyes cannot  distinguish the different bolts,  but if you take high-speed  photography, you'll see those  different bolts of lightning  going up and down that same  channel.  Then I took my deep breath to  give him my 30 second  explanation of lightning, and he  said, "Oh good, thanks," and  hung up.  That's an example of me not  listening.  Because all that person wanted  to know was, he didn't want to  know about lightning and how it  forms, he just wants to know, is  that one bolt or many?  That's all.  So again, the importance of  listening.  And that's a theme you're gonna  see go through the day here.  All right.  Persuading.  What do I think about when I'm  trying to persuade somebody,  about an audience.  That's obviously different than  informing them. 

 Right, if I'm informing them,  I'm gonna maybe just give them  some facts.  But when I'm gonna persuade, I'm  gonna try and do facts and  figures to convince them of  something, or to convince them  to do something.  I'm gonna be thinking about  structuring things, how do  things fit together?  Right, so if I'm gonna talk  about global warming, I'm not  gonna just talk about the  temperature increasing, right?  I'm gonna be talking about the  fact that glaciers are melting,  that the lake ice duration is  going down, that growing seasons  are going longer, and these  things all fit together in a  common experience and a common  scientific justification that  yeah, it's all consistent.  And I'm gonna add a human  dimension to it, right?  I'm gonna really try and  convince somebody that global  warming is important and they're  sitting on the fence, and  they're ice fishers, I'm gonna  ask them, "You go ice fishing?  Is that important tradition for  your family?  Do you do it with your children?  What do you think's gonna happen  50 years from now with that ice  fishing, are you gonna be able  to do that?"  So we add that human dimension.  And again, to persuade them, I'm  gonna listen.  Right, because you can't  convince them to do something  unless you're listening to what  they're saying so you can  present the evidence to convince  them to do something else.  So let me give you an example  again from a radio show.  And again, I've got to give you  a bad example, and you're gonna  come away thinking I don't know  how to communicate.  Which is good, but I think bad  examples are sometimes better  than good examples.  So here's a bad example of  really not listening to somebody  in order to persuade them. 

 And so here we go, and I may  have to turn the volume up a  little bit.  Hopefully not too much.  And I'm only gonna play part of  this, it's gonna be just to give  you a preview, it's gonna be  about global warming, all right,  this is the question the guy  has.  >> Larry Mueller: Well, thank  you very much for calling,  appreciate your call.  And Rich in New Berlin up next.  Hi Rich, thank you for calling.  >> Rich: Good afternoon.  It's a --- global warming ---.  I saw a chart last week that  looked like the global warming  is nothing more than a  naturally-occurring cycle that's  been occurring for 5 million  years or so, possibly even  longer, maybe no more than two  or three.  By carbon destruction. 

 Any take on that?  >> Steve Ackerman: I guess I  would say the debate on global  warming is largely over.  (inaudible)  >> Steve Ackerman: Yeah, I mean,  here's a guy who's  sitting on the fence on global  warming, he wants to be  persuaded one way or the other,  and what do I tell him?  The debate's over, buddy, it's  gone, the lights are out, go to  bed, you missed it!  Right?  It's all over.  There's no way I'm persuading  that guy that that happened.  There's a corollary to this, and  the corollary is this.  Two days later, I'm over at  Science House, working with  somebody over there, her and her  husband are starting off a bread  business down, it's off Highway  12, begins with a C?  It's a great place, they make  great bread.  Can't remember what the name of  it is, it'll come to me.  >> (inaudible)  >> Steve Ackerman: No, no.  It's a relatively new place that  they'll be doing.  So she's serving people, there's  a line of people out there  buying their bread 'cause it's  really good.  Columbus?  Columbus, out by Columbus. 

 And so she's paying attention,  there's a lot of conversation  going on, and then all of a  sudden, she clicks on somebody  talking about weather guys.  And she knows me, she knows I'm  a weather guy.  So she's still doing her stuff  but now she's eavesdropping.  And it's an elderly gentleman,  he's talking to the guy behind  him, he's really interested in  weather, he's really interested  in climate, so he called up the  weather guys to ask them about  global warming.  And the weather guys wouldn't  listen to him at all, just shut  him down, and that's the end of  it, and he had a really negative  opinion.  That was right after this guy.  I'm certain it was that guy.  I'll never get that guy back  again.  I'll never be able to persuade  that guy that global warming is  real.  Because I didn't listen to what  he was saying, and rather than  just trying to persuade him with  a little bit of evidence, I just  shut him down. 

 Not a good thing.  So.  What could I have done better?  I felt really guilty by the way,  halfway into that answer, 'cause  I, I don't know if you picked it  up, but Larry coughed in the  middle of it, like, "Oh, what  are you doing?"  And Jon's looking at me like,  holy mackerel, this poor old  man's calling you, you're giving  him a hard time.  So I actually tried to soften it  up a bit, but it didn't matter,  I had already turned him off.  So what could I have done  better?  What are some of the things I  could've done?  Both from the scientists and  journalists.  Could've asked him some  questions.  Right, where do you get that  information, how does he know.  And I'm gonna show you, just to  let you know that we are okay,  I'm gonna show you a clip later  on where you'll hear this, that  Jon and I a lot of times are  asking people questions a lot in  order to get at what it is, but  I clearly didn't do that, I was  like, "I'm done with this, I  don't want to talk about this."  What else could I have done?  Could've listened better,  could've listened a heck of a  lot better.  I just heard "global warming,"  and I'm thinking, I don't want  to talk about this.  I'm gonna shut him up. 

 And I did.  We got no more calls about  global warming that day, by the  way.  But here's some things I was  thinking about that I could've  done better.  Right?  I could've begun by stating that  many, question mark, people hold  this erroneous belief.  I don't have to put it that way,  but I could've started that way.  Said, you know, a lot of people  are thinking that, because  they're getting some  misinformation or whatever.  I could've basically started to  say, "Yeah, I can see where  you're coming from."  You know, acknowledge that  apparent plausibility that he  has, that global warming may not  be real.  But then, demonstrate its  inadequacy by talking about  things like the more accepted  accounts that the global warming  actually is, and then come back  to these other observations that  we're seeing, which are very  consistent with that theory.  Right?  And then, also argue why these  other things hold together  better, and make a better  argument that, yeah, global  warming is real, and what  they're presenting you is just,  what you're reading is  basically, probably asking  questions where it came from,  you'd probably find out that  it's coming from a political  organization trying to lean them  one way or another.  Any other things I could've done  better?  Yeah?  >> (inaudible)  >> Steve Ackerman: I could've  asked him a lot more questions. 

 Right, yep.  I mean, yeah, I could've asked  if he was an ice fisher, and  what's the lake been like.  All right.  Back to some more objectives,  with regard to entertaining.  I mean, for those who haven't  heard the show, whoops, maybe I  didn't get this one on there.  Oh, I didn't download that one.  That was an entertaining little  clip about Jon and Groundhog  Day.  Jon's a weather forecaster, he's  a numerical weather predicting  guy, he hates Groundhog Day.  And so the question came up from  Larry about Groundhog Day, what  do you think about Groundhog  Day.  And the point here is that if  you listen to the show, or don't  believe me, you can ask people,  people raised their hands, you  can see we're having fun on this  show. 

 We're joking around, we're  having humor, that kind of  thing.  Kind of like people call us the  "Car Guys of weather."  So that's what we do.  The main purpose is not to  entertain, but we're not gonna  get that increase in people  unless we're entertaining them  and informing them about things.  So here's another example.  Wisconsin State Journal, back in  October, they contacted Jon and  I, if we would write a weekly  article.  How many people have seen that,  the weekly article, "Ask the  Weather Guys."  So one, two, three, that's  all?  I agonize for you journalists.  Because what we have is, we have  to answer this question, and we  have 250 words.  That's it.  And that gets pretty hard to  argue some things in only 250  words.  So I really appreciate the  things that you guys do. 

 And so they asked us if we would  do this weekly.  And mine and Jon's first  response was, what do you think  we said?  Nope, we didn't say no.  Nope, we didn't say "who's our  audience?"  We said, "How much can you  pay us?"  (laughter)  What do you think that answer  was, it's the two-letter word.  "No, we're not paying you  anything."  And so basically we wanted to  see if we could get anything and  we didn't get anything.  We didn't really care, we just  thought we would try.  So we've been doing it.  And again, if you think about  answering the questions in a  short journal article, 250  words, what do you think we're  trying to do?  Inform, persuade, or entertain?  Who wants inform?  Clap.  Who wants persuade?  Clap.  And who wants entertain?  Clap.  Okay, yeah, I'm gonna give you  an example where we try to do a  little persuasion, but  persuasion in 250 words is  really hard. 

 So a lot of what we do is  informing.  We actually try to entertain,  and we tried to entertain by  throwing in humor, but that's  really hard to do in 250 words,  too!  So as much as we would like to,  I don't think we entertain very  much, other than people going,  my neighbor saying, "Oh, that  was really interesting about  mugginess and how that feels."  So let me give you  another example.  So a couple of weeks ago, we get  questions from them and then  sometimes we don't get any  questions so we have to make  them up.  And so again, I got sick of this  global warming 'cause I'd just  heard on some show that people  didn't believe global warming  was real, so I said, I'm gonna  make up a question, is global  warming real?  And I'm gonna answer it in 250  words.  So clearly I'm not gonna  persuade anybody, but at least I  wanted to lay some more evidence  out there.  So I answered this question, and  what I did was, I said right  away, "Yes, global warming is  occurring."  But then I said, "Here are  some other things."  Six other things that hold  together in a scientific  framework that are consistent  with this idea of global  warming.  Okay?  So these are the things I did.  Now occasionally, we write these  things up and we get emails back  from people.  Like, one time I talked about  how ice cracks and why ice  cracks, which is actually really  interesting, and it took me like  three days to figure out an  explanation of why ice cracks in  250 words.  And then somebody who lives on  the lake emailed me and said,  "Wow, that's really interesting. 

 What about this stuff when the  ice comes on the shore and  breaks up all the property and  stuff and pushes things back?  How does that happen?"  Didn't seem to be consistent  with my explanation of how ice  cracks.  And so I wrote her a long,  three-paragraph email explaining  what was on, and we had a nice  little interaction.  So we do get some emails.  And intentionally, I did this  hoping to get an email.  And so here's the email that I  got, I got one.  I was very excited about it.  This is what it was.  "Please!  Print the truth!!  Your professors are not  reporting on our earth facts.  None of their six bullet points  can be supported by scientific  facts."  We can't put pictures in or  figures, unfortunately.  "They state over the past two  decades the average global  temperature has increased  noticeably???  Wrong, since 1998 the average  global temperature has been  decreasing, due to fewer  sunspots and solar flares in the  solar cycle, and not related to  human activity. 

 Global warming is a scam!"  So my question to you is,  what's my response?  What do I say to this person, it  happens to be a guy, because he  signed his name.  PhD too, no less.  Who did he work for?  >> (inaudible)  >> Steve Ackerman: Okay,  thank you for sharing,  where'd you get those facts?  What else?  Any other ideas?  Anybody over here want to give  me an idea?  >> (inaudible)  >> Steve Ackerman: You're not  the only one who feels that way.  You know what I did?  Nothing.  Right?  Because it was very clear to me  that there was no way I was  ever gonna persuade this person  one way or the other.  And so this is the way that I  deal with global warming, and  I'm certain other people do  things as well, is that, you  try, and if I realize that  somebody is so far over that  they're not going to recognize  some of the scientific facts,  and they're gonna write the type  of letter that this person did,  it's clear to me I'm not gonna  convince them unless I take two  years.  And I'm just too busy to do  that.  So I did nothing.  What you guys recommend are all  good things to do, but I just  did not want to engage this  person any more than I already  had.  And I figured the gains would be  too little for too much time. 

 So I did nothing.  All right.  We learn things, too.  Yeah, question?  >> (inaudible)  >> Steve Ackerman: That's a good  question.  And there are people I know of  who would've responded and spent  the time to do it.  Because if you can convince one  person, maybe you can convince  others.  But this is where I made the  personal choice where, I'm just  not gonna do it.  I just don't have the time.  If he was more borderline, like  the radio guy...  >> (inaudible)  >> Steve Ackerman: Oh yeah. 

 >> Dominique Broussard:  (inaudible)  A Yale study on  perception of global warming  conducted in November and  December last year, so a few  months ago, three percent of  Americans answered that --- sure  is happening, and 20% don't  know.  They don't know.  So that's a lot.  That's almost 23% that ---.  >> Steve Ackerman: But if I  would've had an email like that  radio caller was...  >> (inaudible)  >> Steve Ackerman: Thinks that  it's not happening, right.  So if I would've had like the  radio caller, I would've replied  back.  But some people are gonna  believe, it's almost, it's a  belief system.  >> (inaudible)  >> Steve Ackerman: Six percent.  So he's probably in this one six  percent, I just figured I'm not  gonna convince him. 

 >> (inaudible)  Do you think by  not getting into that debate,  you are sort of validating his  belief in it.  I understand why you're saying  you didn't go back, I know  people who maybe would take the  time, but I think that's a  concern that you have with this  communicating this  controversial, if you let them  have the last word, it lets them  think that the reason you didn't  respond, whether it's true or  not, is that they were right,  and you're wrong.  >> Steve Ackerman: Right.  And so, because the email's sent  to us, personally, if this  would've been an op-ed response  in the paper, then again I  would've responded.  But since it's me against him,  I'm just not gonna...  >> (inaudible)  >> Steve Ackerman: That's right,  if it would've been a public  forum, then I would've gone to  battle a little bit more,  or a lot more.  And then we would've asked to  put figures in the paper,  because you quickly see that  that's not right.  Yeah?  >> (inaudible)  >> Steve Ackerman: Could've  been, could've been!  Maybe it was a good friend of  mine, right.  Right, he's just like, "I'll  show my friend, get him going."  (laughter)  Other people, what  they would've done, anything  different?  Yeah, so again, this is where I  put the subtitle in.  This is my personal choice, not  to do it. 

 All right, so I cover a little  bit about we learn things too by  doing this public thing.  And a lot of times when I tell  my colleagues, my peers, that I  learn from the public, they just  don't believe me.  They don't.  So I finally have a really good  example.  So I'm gonna play you this  example, and you'll notice a  couple of things about this, one  of which is, this is an example  where you can see that we really  start peppering them with  questions.  >> Hi, Larry.  I had a peculiar picture that I  took of a rainbow that was in  the shape of a capital "N" as in  Norman.  And I can't find anyone who can  ---.  >> (inaudible)  >> Probably a third.  >> Steve Ackerman: Oh, okay. 

 Did you get a photo?  >> I got a photo.  I sent it into our Channel 6  weatherman, and he didn't  explain, he just said "oh, ah."  >> Steve Ackerman: Can I ask  you to email me, and then I'll  look at it and go, "ooh, ah."  (laughter)  (inaudible)  >> Steve Ackerman: Okay, so  you can  see we're asking, you caught the  big one when I was asking how  big of the sky it took up.  Because I don't believe it.  Right, it's not that I don't  believe her, it's just like,  what?  What about this observation.  But then on the other hand, over  the years we've realized that  the public really observes  carefully.  And so every time I'm asking her  a question, "What's the order of  the colors, what's the size?"  It's like, I'm thinking it's  something else, and when she  tells me that it's small, I'm  gonna know it's not a rainbow.  But she said, "No, it's big,"  and I go, "Oh, damn."  That's not right.  What's the order of the colors?  If the orders of the colors are  wrong, then it's gonna be  something else.  But the orders of the colors are  right, so I'm like, "God, I just  can't figure this out."  But fortunately she took a  picture.  So a week later, I get this  letter and there's a photo in  it. 

 And here's the photo.  It's an "N"-shaped rainbow.  And I'll put the things on there  so you can see it better.  You know, taking photos of  rainbows is really hard.  Right?  It's an "N"-shaped rainbow.  I was blown away, I went and I  got, I had three optics books at  home.  I went through all three of  them.  Only one of them talked about  this type of rainbow.  And they sketched it out in  black and white, like somebody  drew a picture.  And what they said was, they  didn't really know what caused  it. 

 Except they do know that it  always occurs over water.  So clearly somehow reflection is  playing a role in that.  But nobody knew what it was.  And so sure enough, the very  next month, we're back on the  radio show again, and you know,  I go into Larry and I say,  "Yeah, this is true!"  I bring the photo, I show it  to him, and so on the next show  we actually talked about this.  The "N"-shaped rainbow and the  fact that we really don't know  what causes it, occurs over  lakes, etc.  So it was really kind of, I  really learned something.  It was really good.  And then of course, like three  years later, somebody else  called in and said, "I saw this  really odd rainbow, it had three  legs in it, type of thing."  And I'm like, "Was it shaped  like an 'N'?"  She's like, "Yeah!"  I was like, "Is it over water?"  She's like, "Yeah!"  "Oh, that's the 'N'-shaped  rainbow, we know all about that  thing."  So you sound really smart.  So yeah, we learned some things  as well.  So let me just get into some  typical tips that people get. 

 So again, for the scientists,  you may have heard these, if  you've read some of these books.  How many people have read The  Scientist's Guide to Talking  with the Media?  All right, this is one of the  more recent ones that came out.  >> (inaudible)  >> Steve Ackerman: Ah, okay.  So I want to go through some of  the tips and how I think about  them and then give you the ones  that I think are really missing.  All right, keep it simple, not  simplistic.  That's obviously a good rule.  And actually, I want to do this  for the journalists too because  I think it's important that you  understand where we're coming  from when you interview somebody  or you're talking to somebody.  Remember your audience, okay,  know who you're talking to,  that's clearly an important  thing.  Avoid jargon, that's ---  probably over and over again, of  course, we really don't know  what jargon is.  So sometimes telling to avoid it  isn't very good. 

 Keep it short, which is good,  what is short, though, I don't  know.  Three minutes, yeah, it actually  takes a long time to eat up  three minutes talking about  stuff.  Use active, colorful words.  I don't know if I really know  many colorful words, but  certainly active words,  certainly good things to do.  And you'll hear this over and  over again as you read it, as  scientists, as you're being told  how to interact with the public,  the media in particular.  Keep it focused on one of your  main messages, right, keep it  focused.  Keep it focused.  Mastering the interview, this is  quotes again coming out of this  book in here, this is how you  master the interview, I love  this phrase.  Master the interview.  Choose your words carefully. 

 Good thing, right, you don't  want to say really stupid  things.  You also want to choose words  that you don't want to say, and  then again I'll give you an  example.  Back in the early 1990s, we were  working with NASA, and they  brought in the NASA ER2, which  is a special plane that we use  to validate satellites studies  and to calibrate satellites.  And so the ER2 came to Madison,  big experiment, so of course the  media wants to come and see and  we wanted the media to come to  get the word out there.  So NASA, this was like my first  training session on how to be  interviewed and deal with the  media.  And one of the things that the  NASA people taught me that I  distinctly remember was, don't  use the word "U2."  Call it the NASA ER2, because  it is a U2, it's designed just  like a U2.  And a U2 is a...?  >> Spy plane.  >> Steve Ackerman: It's a spy  plane, right, yeah.  So not a good thing, because we  want to fly over Mexico and  Canada and stuff like that.  So they said, don't use "U2."  So the Madison paper comes in,  I'm interviewing the guy, I'm  telling him all this science,  showing him around, showing the  instruments and what we're  trying to do, and then I take  him to the plane and show him  the plane, and he's all excited  about seeing the plane. 

 And he looks at the plane and he  says, "That looks like a U2."  And I'm thinking, "I'm not  supposed to say that word.  Now what do I do?"  So I figured, I'm not gonna  lie to this guy, I'm just gonna  take it right on.  So I said, "Yeah.  It's like a U2 because this  thing flies really high, so you  need that kind of structure in  order to get up there."  And he was like, "Oh, that's  okay, let's talk more about the  instruments."  So it just went, I thought,  this is great.  It just flew right by, I didn't  ignore it, I just dealt with it.  So the next day I get the paper,  and what does it say?  The headlines?  "Spy Plane Comes to Madison."  And I'm thinking, NASA's gonna  kill me.  So it's good to think about the  words you don't want to say.  However, having said that, that  is the, of many interviews that  I've done since then, that is  the only interview where not  only did I make front page, I  was the headline.  So now I think about words I  shouldn't say, and then I wonder  about saying them.  All right, interview when you're  ready, you know, you get a call,  it's good to be polite back, but  if you're not ready to talk  about things, then don't. 

 That's the other thing we're  told.  Stay on course.  These guys like to talk about a  "message-compass," they also  like to talk about the message  box, I don't know if you guys  would talk about that.  Know what your message is and  stay on course.  Repeat, repeat, repeat.  I don't like staying on course  very much, that guideline.  The repeat, repeat, repeat,  that's a quote.  Repeat, repeat, repeat.  I hate that.  'Cause I think that's really  boring, and I think it's really  insulting to the interviewer,  because what it's saying is,  You're so stupid, I'm gonna  have to repeat this three times. 

 So I try not to repeat,  repeat, repeat.  And then, what to do when you're  straying off course.  I'm gonna read you this from  pages 76.  I think I got some time here.  76, this is what he says about  straying off course.  "It is easy to stick to your  talking points when reporters  are asking you questions  directly related to your  message.  But what happens when reporters  start asking questions far  afield from those you want to  discuss?  If you start answering questions  with responses not on your  compass, the reporter will  almost certainly take the story  in a direction you don't want to  go.  To keep that from happening,  answer the reporter's questions  as quickly as you can, and then  go back to your main messages,  which will direct the interview  in the direction of the story  you want told.  This technique is called  bridging."  Even have a name for it.  Any responses from the  journalists?  >> (inaudible)  >> Steve Ackerman: Huh?  >> (inaudible)  >> There's no, in  your field, it's much, I don't  know if there's any controversy  in meteorology as there may be  in biotech or stem cells or  whatever, so I think that advice  is for interviewees who could  get into trouble with what they  say. 

 Maybe, there's no chance of  getting in trouble...  >> Steve Ackerman: Okay,  that's fine, that's true, that's  true, we'll come back to that.  We'll come back to that.  Other comments?  But again, they don't segregate  this out in terms of  controversial topics.  This is what the graduate  students are being taught.  >> Okay, but I guess I don't  understand why it says to stay  on message.  >> Steve Ackerman: All right,  we'll come back to that.  Any other ones?  I don't want to give away the  punch line.  Yeah?  >> Well, it could be if you're  prepared to give a specific  message, and they start straying  from that, that you're not  prepared to talk about another  issue and topic related to it,  you don't want to misspeak, or  try to make up things as you go.  >> Steve Ackerman: So that's  where, so one way to do that is  to stay on message. 

 Yeah.  The other way to do that is to  say, "I don't know."  Which is what I say a lot.  Any other comments?  >> It seems like you may want to  avoid it in order to not make  connections between what you're  doing and other things that may  seem related but aren't really.  >> Steve Ackerman: Right, okay.  Yep.  >> To the journalist you may  appear evading, and maybe wonder  why you're not --- the  questions, because they may come  in having done some research and  having an angle that they're  trying to, so they, it may turn  out to be better --- overall.  >> Steve Ackerman: Right, so  you're trying to be evasive, and  maybe not going in a direction  that they want.  Yeah.  >> If you repeat, repeat,  repeat, or the way you prefer to  see it, you're controlling the  interview.  The person who's interviewing  you does not have as much power. 

 You have to be able to dictate  what you want to be able to let  people know about.  >> Steve Ackerman: And that is  where, I'm gonna give you the  punch line now, this is where I  really disagree with these  books.  Because I really believe that  when somebody wants to interview  me, it's not my story.  It's your story.  And what I gotta do is I gotta  listen to what you want, in  order to be able to fit what I  want to say, or what I know into  the story that you're trying to  write about.  So this is all about me.  And in fact, when I went through  this whole book, I have yet to  find the word "listen."  And communication, Scientist's  Guide to Talking with the Media.  That's not talking with, that's  talking at.  It's not, I think it needs to be  a conversation, and it's your  story that I'm trying to  contribute to.  And if I can't contribute to it,  then that's fine. 

 And that's why I object to these  type of things.  Same thing about the repeat,  repeat, repeat.  Not only in my way are you kind  of insulting people, but it's  just kind of saying, "Here's my  story and I'm sticking to it."  It's almost like making you a  politician.  Right?  Here's my byte sound, and I'm  gonna say it over and over again  no matter what your question is,  I'm not gonna listen to it, I'm  gonna give you my answer to it.  So that's the thing that I have  against it.  Then they also tell you what to  do, the interview's over and now  what?  And again these are from my  personal perspective, so they  suggest things like, talking  back to the interviewer, asking  them if they can explain what it  is, which are all good tools.  But again, I just tend not to do  that, I just figure the person  that's interviewing me, as I  listen and talk with them, I'm  gonna know whether or not  they're getting it.  Because I'm listening to them.  So I'm not gonna ask them, I  generally never ask if I can  read the article again before it  gets published.  Although, many suggest that you  do that. 

 But then they tell you, don't be  surprised if the journalist  tells you no.  All right, and then here's some  more help that you get out of  the book.  And again, I'm biasing this  toward my own perspective.  Put your message into  perspective, which I think is  good.  Right, frame it in a way that's  interesting, if you can discover  what the story's about, or where  you think the story is going,  try and put your message in a  way that fits into that story so  that you can get into the  report.  Come from the heart.  I totally agree that it should  come from the heart.  On the other hand, it's hard to  come from the heart when you  repeat, repeat, repeat.  Right, because then it gets very  mechanical.  And in fact, if I have a very  complicated message, I'll write  it out and I'll think about it,  and then I'll say it twice out  loud and then I won't ever say  it again. 

 Until it comes out.  Because I don't want it to sound  mechanical.  I want it to come from the heart  so it sounds and is genuine, and  I don't see how that matches  with repeat, repeat, repeat.  Paint a picture with your  message, tell a story, same  thing, I think that's a really  good way to do it.  Get images in people's minds,  because we think a lot about  visualization.  And so I certainly try and do  that when people are asking me  questions.  Relate numbers and methodology  simple.  I'll give you an example of  that, I was at a talk a couple  of years ago and a guy was  talking about the rate at which  one glacier in Greenland was  melting.  And he gave the numbers in cubic  feet or something, something,  because I'm sitting in the  audience, very interesting talk,  except when he told me how much  it was melting, I thought to  myself, I haven't a clue what  you're talking about.  And then he said, "For those of  you in the audience who don't  have a clue what I'm talking  about, the amount of water that  melts in one season of melting  was enough water to feed the  entire, supply the entire city  of LA with its water for six  years."  That's a big number. 

 That's a way to grab people's  attention.  Speaking in the vernacular, I  had to look up what vernacular  was, I didn't know what that  meant.  So it's kind of like jargon.  Employ the astute quip, again, a  direct quote, very good, I'm not  very good at astute quips, so if  you can figure one out that's  good.  And then the bottom line, and I  want to read you again bottom  line, page 70, is the following.  And it begins with "the bottom  line is this: in all your  interactions with the press,  whether it's an interview, with  a general assignment reporter at  your local newspaper, or a top  science journalist at one of the  nation's leading media outlets,  you should know beforehand what  you want to say and how you are  going to say it.  That way, reporters will use the  quotes you want them to use.  They are just waiting for you to  give them something good."  You know what that sounds like  to me?  Lecturing.  I don't, again, it goes back to  the idea, I'm gonna tell you  want you want to know and I  don't really care what you're  interested in, I'm not gonna  listen to what you say, I'm  gonna just figure out how to get  my message to you.  And I think that's the wrong way  to do things. 

 That's not to say this thing is  useless, it's just, I'm giving  you my point.  So again, what's missing from  these guidelines?  That are not written in this  book.  One is that communication is  two-way, which means it requires  listening, like I said, I have  yet to find the word "listen" in  here.  And I think that's crazy.  You gotta listen, you gotta  communicate, it's two-way.  If you're always hung up on your  message, you're not gonna hear  what it is they really want to  know.  I truly believe that it's not my  story.  I have information to supply to  your story, and therefore I'm  gonna listen to what you have to  say in order to try and get, to  help with that story.  Again, where's "listen"?  It's not in here.  And the listen, I skipped that,  another story, I'll skip it, but  I'll just say, the listening  isn't always just listening  verbally, it's also listening  physically, walking and  observing what the heck is going  on. 

 And whether or not that means,  what that means when you walk  into an environment and it's all  dark and the interviewers are  bored out of their minds, what  does that mean for you in terms  of what you want to do.  It means you're not gonna get,  you'd better do, ah, forget it.  We'll come back to that.  So what's my bottom line?  Here's my bottom line.  Know your audience, you can  figure that out by the messages  I said before, but also a good  way to figure them out is to  listen.  That's my thing.  Listen to what they're saying,  that's how you figure out who  they really are.  Know your purpose, but be  flexible.  I do have messages when I'm  being interviewed by somebody,  but I'm flexible, and if I need  to change that message, I'll  change it quick, and if my  messages don't fit in, then who  cares?  Know your rules.  I have some rules and I guess I  didn't really highlight them as  we were going through, but  what's one of my rules?  Listen!  Right, somebody's listening,  right. 

 Listen, pay attention,  communicate, means two-way  street.  And listen well, that's one of  my rules.  And then the other one which we  didn't talk too much about is  practice.  I don't think you can get really  good at it, and this is probably  for during the interview versus  being the scientist interacting  with the public.  You can't get good at it unless  you practice, so as much as I  sometimes hate talking about  science at Thanksgiving dinner,  I do, when somebody asks me, and  I try and put it in words that  they can understand.  Just because it's a good way to  practice communicating with  people.  And be nervous.  At least until you start.  Some people say, I don't like  talking to public because I get  really nervous.  In my mind, if you get nervous  that's good. 

 Because that means you want to  do a good job.  So don't be afraid of being  nervous.  So with that, I got a few more  minutes, maybe?  If we have any questions or  comments.  Yes?  >> (inaudible)  >> Steve Ackerman: I'm sorry?  >> (inaudible)  >> Steve Ackerman: Oh, yes.  I've done two experiences with  television.  One was for "Good Morning  America," 1991, what was  happening in 1991?  The Gulf War, the first Gulf  War.  And they were entering the dust  season.  So it turns out that I did my  dissertation in dust storms, and  actually dust storms over the  Saudi Arabian peninsula.  And you know what, there were  not many dissertations back in  1991 on dust storms in Saudi  Arabia peninsula.  There are a lot now, but there  weren't back then. 

 So I suddenly became the expert  and they wanted to interview me  on "Good Morning America."  So I talked to the producer  for three days in a row, and  realized afterwards that the  main reason he was interviewing  me was to make sure that I  wasn't an idiot.  And I was going to be  interviewed by the weather guy,  so they didn't want to have the  researcher and make the weather  guy look dumb.  And so after three days he  realized, oh, this guy's okay,  he's gonna be good on the show.  So they invited me out there,  they gave me a ticket and I went  to the United counter, there was  a huge line, I waited in this  line, I got up there, I gave  them my ticket and the woman  looks, 'cause there's no 9/11  yet, the woman kind of just  looks at me like, "What the hell  are you doing?"  Turns out they gave me a first  class ticket to fly out there to  New York.  First time I ever flew first  class.  I was so excited.  Got off the plane, there was a  little Ackerman sign, got into a  limousine, they took me to this  nice hotel on Park Street near  wherever the theater was, NBC or  ABC, I don't remember what it  was.  I stayed there, I wanted to go  out and party that night but I  said no, that wouldn't be right,  I gotta be ready, I gotta be top  of my game 'cause it's gonna be  a live interview, I gotta be  ready for it.  They came in the morning, they  picked me up in a limousine,  they took me to the studio, they  put me in the green room, which  is really green, which really  surprised me.  Lot of good food, including New  York bagels, which I love 'cause  I'm from New York. 

 I met the health woman there, we  had a nice little conversation,  it was really friendly, lot of  fun, I was really excited about  this.  The producer comes walking in,  welcomes me, everything's ready  to go and she says, "I've got  good news for you and I've got  bad news for you.  What do you want first?"  And I was like, "I'll take the  bad news."  She goes, "Tom Brokaw talks  too much."  And I go, "Okay, what's the  good news?"  She goes, "Sadaam Hussein  surrendered."  And so I'm thinking, okay, so  Sadaam Hussein, he's  surrendered, that means you  probably don't want to talk  about dust storms.  And she goes, "Unless Tom Brokaw  has something, runs out of  things to say," which clearly  wasn't gonna happen.  So they let me sit there and  watch the show for a little  while, I never did get on.  In the end, it was kind of like  instead of leaving at 3:00, it  was clear I wasn't gonna get on  because Tom Brokaw wouldn't shut  the hell up, I just said, okay,  I'll take the 1:00 flight out of  there, so they did, got to La  Guardia, big long line, nobody  on first class.  Yeah.  Went up there, slapped my first  class ticket on there, saying,  "I'm gonna get on this plane."  Woman looks at it, gives it  back to me, and she says,  "You're not in first class."  So they flew me out in first  class, they flew me back in  coach.  (laughter)  That was it.  But I did end up on "Modern  Marvels."  And this is the other story  that I was gonna not tell, but  now I'll tell you since you  asked. 

 So I was asked, this is a  History Channel, "Modern  Marvels," how many people have  seen that?  Lot of people.  Anyone see the one on ice?  This is the one on ice.  Very interesting, you should  watch it, it's fascinating,  besides I'm on here.  52 minutes and 20 seconds into  it, you'll find me.  (laughter)  So they were gonna  interview me on a Wednesday.  But then they ran behind  schedule so they called me up  and said, "Can you come  tomorrow, we're running way  behind."  So I was like all right, that  would be fine.  "Can you come at 11:00?"  I said, "No I can't come at  11:00, I teach."  So they're like, "Well, we can  squeeze you in at 1:00."  All right, I'll come at one.  Then they called me up at 11:30,  "We're behind, can you come at  2:00?"  Okay.  "Can you come at 3:00?  Can you come at 4:00?  Can you come at 5:00?"  These guys are leaving at  9:00.  So I walk in, it's at Space  Place, it's in the basement of  Space Place. 

 These guys are from California,  who are doing the filming and  interviewing, we got six inches  of snow and slush and it was  miserable weather outside.  I walk into the Space Place  where it is, I go down to the  basement, it's pitch black.  'Cause they're filming.  I get greeted by the woman  there, very friendly, but I look  at her right away and I know,  this woman's exhausted.  They've been doing this all day.  And I find out again that I'm  the last one, this is gonna go  really good.  I go into the room where the  director is, I can just see him  sitting there, "Who's next?"  The video, photographers, just  sitting there, he's got his  camera up, he's just sitting  there not paying attention.  Ooh, what happened there?  And all I'm thinking, it's dark,  they come in, they have me sit  on the stool, the director looks  at the photographer and asks,  "How's the lighting?"  He goes, "It's fine."  And all I'm thinking to myself  is, "I'm never getting on  'Marvels'  My TV career is over."  Is that me?  Oh, well anyway, I'll be quick  then.  So I'm just thinking, this is  terrible, the guys are bored,  they're tired, they don't want  to be there anymore, I want to  be on "Modern Marvels," I'm not  gonna be on "Modern Marvels"  because these guys just want to  get the hell out of here.  And so the guy asked me, finally  he said, "All right, here we go. 

 Tell me why hail forms."  And so I'm like, hail forms,  and I'm doing this and I'm  starting getting really animated  and excited and I could see the  video guy just go, whoa, okay,  we got a hot one here.  And all of a sudden the director  is like, oh, here we go.  If you go back and look at this,  no offense to the other guys in  here, but they were all talking  heads.  And suddenly they have a guy  who's animated.  So, I'm done with my explanation  of hail and I look at the video  guy and I just said, "Was that  okay?"  And he was just like, "Well,  it was okay, but when you did  your stuff like this you were  kind of blocking your face and  that didn't work out."  So I'm like, "Want to do it  again?"  He's like, "Yeah."  So I did it again.  I did it about three or four  times.  And I talk hail, so I got really  animated.  So that's the key about  television.  I think, particularly in video  stuff.  If you're doing live stuff like  on News 3 and stuff, that stuff  I get really nervous about  because it's live and you've got  to be really careful about what  you're gonna say and how you're  gonna look. 

 But when you're being taped for  television usually, it's usually  taped.  It's really fun, 'cause they  asked me once, "How does  freezing rain affect aircraft  flight?"  So I'm explaining to them how  that happens and how the ice  occurs and all that, and I just  really didn't do it very good  and so in the middle of it, I'm  like, "Well, that was stupid,  can we do that again?"  And they were like, "Yeah."  So it's fun.  Those are my two television  stories that were fun.  So get this.  It's a good, it's actually very  fascinating.  52 minutes and 20 seconds into  it.  I know that because I sent it to  my mom.  She was real proud.  (laughter)  Yeah?  >> (inaudible)  >> Steve Ackerman: Baloney.  But I say that because really,  in some regards, it depends on  what the field is, and by that I  mean, so we offer a course in  explaining research to the  public, in fact I'm hoping we'll  get to teach it someday  together. 

 Where you address that.  And actually we find out that  there are people who take that  course who never tell their  advisor, because their advisor's  gonna say that to them.  And I just, one, I don't think  that's right, I don't believe  it.  I think, as I was saying, you  learn from it.  And there's no doubt in my mind  that in the career of anybody,  communication is critical.  And the only way you're gonna  learn to communicate is to go  out there and do that and do  that communication with more  than one public.  So I think you gotta get out and  you gotta talk to a variety of  people because that's gonna  improve your communication  skills.  But I have a hard time  convincing all my colleagues of  that, as well.  So it is definitely an issue  that I think we need to address.  And one way that it's being  addressed is through the NSF  broader impacts part of it,  'cause you're supposed to be  able to go out now and explain  and interact with the public  about your research. 

 And one way to do that is to  have graduate students involved  in an outreach project.  It's a good way to check that  box for a researcher who doesn't  believe that that's important.  (applause)