Drue Banta Winters | AFS Policy Director. Email: [email protected] Julie Claussen | Fisheries Conservation Foundation Carolyn Hall | Works on Water Katie O’Reilly | University of Notre Dame As fisheries scientists, we understand the value of water. Our work is intrinsically connected to it and its many facets: its quality, flow, availability, and temperature, to name a few. Human-caused climate change is increasingly putting a spotlight on our relationship to water. Fisheries scientists are rapidly adjusting to the consequences of higher temperatures, warming waters, drought, forest fires, more intense storms, and sea level rise for both fish and human communities. Yet nearly 40% of Americans still do not believe climate change has a direct connection to them, according to the Pew Research Center (https://pewrsr.ch/3eoVsAh). This disconnect alarmed and inspired AFS Past President Scott Bonar to issue a call to action for AFS members to reach out to non-scientists with the goal of building support for reducing fossil fuel emissions. It is often said that as AFS members, we are great at speaking to each other. We love to share graphs and statistics, but that passion for data often doesn’t resonate with journalists, policymakers, or other audiences. The skills needed to connect with non-scientists about our work and how it relates to the changing climate generally falls outside the communication comfort zone for many of our members. The good news is that many fisheries professionals are looking to be part of changing the narrative around climate change, and are eager to develop the skills that will help them be effective in their communication efforts. That was the impetus for the AFS Climate Ambassador Program. What began as a relatively modest idea for communications training has developed into a unique 2-year program to build a network of skilled fisheries and climate science communicators who can interact with a broad range of audiences using a variety of communication techniques. The application process for the first cohort of 30 ambassadors was held in the fall of 2020, and the response was overwhelming, with close to 100 applications submitted. A selection committee evaluated the applications, considering regional and ecosystem representation, as well as applicants’ areas of expertise. Our inaugural class of 30 talented scientists began their training in January 2021 with the COMPASS Message Box Training, followed by a lecture from Randy Olsen in his “And, But, Therefore” narrative training. Ambassadors now meet twice a month for a training session that explores a communications topic, followed by a hands-on practical skill building session. The training sessions have included narrative development, communicating with policymakers, exploring improvisation and acting skills, gaining confidence with media pitches and journalists, effectively using visuals, and developing compelling presentations. Most importantly, Ambassadors are learning to connect their own personal experiences that express why they care and relate to why they want and need the audience to care about the fish and waters that are being impacted by climate change. To do this, they are learning how to take into account their audience’s thoughts and feelings in order to craft a message that is based on shared values. And they are exploring the power of visuals and image-rich descriptions to emphasize key points, leaving behind the world of complicated charts and graphs and technical terminology. In the recipe to make this program matter, the key ingredient was a group of dedicated individuals willing to explore, expand their perspective, assess their communication strengths and weaknesses, practice new methods, and welcome evaluations. This first cohort of Climate Ambassadors are meeting those challenges head-on. They volunteer their time not only to attend the training and working sessions, but also to produce various outreach materials, such as essays, media pitches, presentations, policy fact sheets, or just practice having meaningful conversations about climate change. The techniques and skills gained through this program are preparing the Ambassadors to inspire audiences to both care and be motivated to act. Actions for change are a personal choice and will range from increased interest in their local fish populations and waters, to signing up for community science monitoring, to contacting their representatives with policy suggestions, to creating public momentum behind reducing the use of fossil fuels. Whatever level of action our Ambassadors inspire, they are showing that the future is indeed bright in our ability to change perspectives and engage our diverse audiences. The Climate Ambassador Program is supported by a grant from NOAA Fisheries, in-kind support from the Fisheries Conservation Foundation, and nearly 1,000 volunteer hours from a small team of science communicators who are building the program from the ground up and counseling the Ambassadors to hone their skills. Meet our Ambassadors on the Climate Ambassador webpage (https://bit.ly/2RL5rYq) and consider applying for the next class, set to begin fall 2022.

Brian Murphy | AFS President. Email: [email protected] This is my last column written as President of AFS. As always, the views expressed here are mine and are not intended to represent AFS or its members. I fully expect that some people will disagree with my contentions and opinions. Feel free to offer your viewpoint in this magazine’s new feature, Fisheries Forum. “Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.” So wrote Francis Church, an editor of The (New York) Sun in 1897 responding to an 8-year-old’s question, “Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus … Please tell me the truth; is there a Santa Claus?” He continued: “Virginia, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds.” (Wikipedia 2021). Some today would have us believe that the concept of global warming and resultant rapid climate change is like Santa Claus, a myth that they mock others for believing. These are the deniers, who have been with us since the start of the climate change discussion. Recently this denialism has been amplified in part by conservative policymakers and media, and a now-former U.S. President, who once tweeted, “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive” (Volodzko 2019). The question of climate change, and what can or should be done about it, has become a politically charged controversy that has moved well outside of the scientific and technical questions that should compose the critical core of this discussion. And while climate change denialism is solidly and embarrassingly centered in my own nation, the impacts of denialism and climate inaction already impact our entire planet. Right up front, let me state the facts as I see them: (1) the Earth is warming and its climate regime is changing; (2) human activities are the major driver of this change, through our emissions of heat-trapping gases (primarily from the use of fossil fuels) into the atmosphere; (3) these changes have already negatively impacted both our natural and built ecosystems, and these impacts will only increase if we fail to take effective action; (4) there is only one real solution to slow or reverse climate change, and that is to reduce our emissions of heat-trapping gases; (5) certain people seek to block effective responses to climate change for corrupt purposes, and they use science denialism, rhetorical tricks, and propaganda to confuse the public and obfuscate the truth. Below I offer some of the evidence and critical thinking that leads me to accept these facts, and briefly discuss how we might counter science denialism that impedes effective response to global climate change. Due to space limitations I will not list citations for every event and data point presented here; reliable reports of those are accessible in news media and the scientific literature, but be sure to employ a critical eye when evaluating your sources (Murphy 2020, 2021). First, let’s scientifically define some common terms for clarity in this discussion. Weatherreflects short-term conditions of the atmosphere (e.g., temperature, precipitation, wind) while climate is the average daily weather for an extended period of time at a certain location (NOAA 2021a). Climate change is a significant and persistent shift in weather patterns from the long-term averages that we have considered to be emblematic of the climate for a region. Finally, global warming refers to long-term heating of Earth’s climate system observed since the pre-industrial period, attributed by knowledgeable experts to the release and accumulation in the atmosphere of “greenhouse” (heat-trapping) gases primarily originating from the extraction and use of fossil fuels (NASA 2021a). Lobbyists, politicians, and politicized pundits seeking to dismiss concerns about climate change have long misused these terms and misstated these concepts. In one famous incident, a climate change-denying U.S. Senator brought a snowball to the floor of the Senate, as if a Washington, D.C. snowstorm in February were somehow proof that the planet is not warming (UCS 2021). Whether such specious claims are due to scientific illiteracy or intentional obfuscation for political purposes, what looks to many like an intentional disinformation campaign for political gain has understandably confused the public about whether global climate change is happening, much less its causes. Climate change resulting from global heating is a relatively simple-to-understand concept that is dictated by the basic rules of physics and chemistry. Heat-trapping greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide and methane) from various sources (particularly the burning of fossil fuels) accumulate in Earth’s atmosphere. These gases trap heat energy that normally would dissipate into outer space, and the planet warms (particularly the oceans). The Earth’s energy budget increases, and the climate system is modified. That modified energy budget can change major air and water currents that have historically shaped our climate, and we see weather and climate events that were considered abnormal under the old climate system (e.g., extreme heat waves and drought, severe storms, catastrophic flooding). All of these events were predicted years ago, and we see evidence now that all are coming to fruition. How Much Evidence Do We Need? So, is the Earth’s climate indeed changing? Look around. Evidence for a notable change in global climate patterns is all around us, and every day brings new examples of worsening disasters tied to the warming of the planet. If the world were not in a global pandemic right now, climate-related disasters would surely dominate the daily news. Look at what has occurred in just recent months: The year 2020 was reported to be the second-hottest year on record, eclipsed only by 2016. All seven of the world’s warmest years have been since 2014. Last year was also the 44th consecutive year that average global surface temperature was above the mean for the 20th century (NOAA 2021b). Multi-year drought in portions of North America has worsened this year to the point that the northern plains