3. This was a joy to write because my co-authors were brilliant, patient, and kind. As were our reviewers - immense respect for how thorough, gracious and encouraging they were. This experience has emphasised for me that we can do better thinking when we host others well.

What rhythms/habits of communication could scientists adopt to help make their communications and values easy to understand? What about a spectrum of communication roles a scientist can reference they’re trying to communicate in (sorry, couldn’t resist - that’s my old thesis)?

…with the explicit goal of inspiring action”. How do we actually do that? What do you think? Deliberative mini-publics/citizen juries? A new arm of climate science with inherent values, like *conservation* (an inherent value) biology? No?

2. We recommend that “By framing research outcomes consonant with predefined shared democratic values, and listening to society’s concerns, expectations, and ideas, we believe climate scientists can engage in open and inclusive dialogues with society…

3️⃣ things from me: 1. The TLDR? (It’s not actually that long, so treat yourself to a cuppa and read the whole thing - it’s open access) Avoiding activism doesn’t make neutral science. We should talk about how we want scientists to talk to us, and help them ‘sound the alarm’.