“If you try to target everyone, no one’s going to listen”

Tom Janssen started Creators for Climate to bridge the gap between scientific research and public understanding. He is doing so by creating engaging, factual content that inspires action. How does he navigate the ethical aspects of communicating about climate change/climate science?

As climate change remains one of the biggest challenges of our time, clear and effective communication is more important than ever. After studying biology and lacustrine science, Tom Janssen decided to swap lab work for lenses, microphones, and digital platforms—all in the pursuit of climate action. Today, he creates content, podcasts, workshops, and coaching tools aimed at making science accessible and inspiring others to take action.

In this issue focused on ethics, we spoke with Tom about the responsibility that comes with communicating science in today’s digital world—from emotional storytelling and algorithm-driven platforms to the challenges of conspiracy theories and political tensions.

What led you to transition from studying marine life to advocating for climate action through media?

“I got into science early on. As an only child, I was always exploring and fascinated by things like dinosaurs, whales, and dolphins. I knew from high school that I wanted to be a marine biologist, so I studied biology and did a master’s in marine science.”

“At the same time, I was always creative. I went to art academy and loved experimenting with different mediums and telling stories with them. But I never really knew how to combine that creative side with science—until I got a GoPro and started filming during dives.”

“During an internship with dolphins in Spain, I realized I was more interested in the stories on the boat than in collecting data. I made a short video there, and that’s when it clicked: I wanted to develop my video skills and tell these kinds of stories.”

“After that, I interned at a film company, shadowed different roles, and learned the production side. I started freelancing, took on video gigs, and really enjoyed the entrepreneurial side: sitting and brainstorming with people, building ideas from scratch.”

“Eventually, I founded Creators for Climate to focus on storytelling around climate, sustainability, and biodiversity—bringing everything together.”

Through Creators for Climate, you’ve embraced different formats for storytelling, from podcasts and blogs to workshops. Based on your experience in these workshops, what’s the #1 skill gap you see in how scientists approach communication?

“If I had to highlight one key gap, it’s the ability to adapt communication to different audiences. Understanding who your audience is—their demographics, psychographics, and behaviors—is fundamental. From there, it’s about crafting a message that fits how they prefer to be spoken to and finding the right platform for distribution. For instance, if your audience is active on platforms like Instagram or TikTok, you need to meet them there. Without these adaptive skills—whether it’s understanding media literacy or platform usage—the message risks being lost. You have to be able to adapt your message and not think from within yourself but think from the shoes of your audience.”

© Tom Janssen

Tailoring messages to specific audiences through demographics, interests, and online behavior, makes communication more effective, as you said. But isn’t there an ethical grey area here? Are we not engaging in a form of digital profiling, often without people’s awareness? And by hyper-personalizing content, is there a danger of creating echo chambers instead of sparking broader conversations around climate?

“Yes, there are a few layers to that. From behavioral science, we know the most effective way to encourage change is by making the message personally relevant to the individual. Ideally, we’d tailor communication to each person, because everyone is the sum of their life experiences, environment, and behavior. But in the real world, we can’t hyper-personalize communication to that degree. So, we group people together based on interests, and we try to bring the message as close as we can to that audience.”

“The issue comes when communication is poorly targeted. Many scientists still use jargon or technical language, which limits their reach. But if we can connect science to something that resonates with people—like humor or content that’s more engaging—we can reach those who might not normally be interested in science."

"It's about creating overlaps between different groups of interest. If you try to target everyone, no one’s going to listen.”

Another common piece of advice is to tap into emotion.  Emotional storytelling can indeed be a powerful way to engage. But it can also raise ethical questions, especially when future generations or vulnerable groups are used as emotional triggers. How do you balance connecting with audiences without crossing into manipulation? Where’s the line?

“If we’re bringing a climate or environmental message and we want people to change how they behave, then in the strict sense of the word, that is manipulation. We are trying to influence behavior.”

“So then the question becomes: where do we want to go as a society? What science communicators and emotional storytellers usually aim for is not personal gain, but societal benefit. The intent is to bring people together and do good. If emotional messaging helps move society in a direction we collectively consider better, then I don’t see that as manipulation.”

Beyond audience research and emotional storytelling, are there any overlooked tools that you’ve found especially helpful in your work?

“One of the things that I think is really underused is just whiteboarding. Whether it’s a digital whiteboard or a physical one, it helps you cluster ideas, visualize structure, and play around with different versions of your message. It gives you a space to creatively work things out.”

“Another one is AI, especially for audience simulation. AI can draw on so much context that it gets pretty close to mimicking how someone with a certain background might respond to your message. That’s incredibly valuable when you’re trying to figure out whether your wording works—whether it connects with the kind of person you’re targeting.”

Related to AI, with deepfakes and AI-generated content on the rise, how can science communicators maintain public trust and credibility?

“A lot of it comes down to transparency. Being open about mistakes and corrections, like many journalists do, helps build credibility. It shows you’re human, and people appreciate that honesty.”

“Another key factor is having a personal brand as a science communicator. Having a personal brand doesn’t mean you have to show your face or share your full story. It’s more about building a consistent presence—one that people recognize and trust. If people can understand where your message is coming from and how it’s been packaged, they’ll know it’s coming from you. And that becomes an anchor point for trust.”

© Creators for Climate

Social media isn’t neutral. Algorithms prioritize engagement, often rewarding controversy, oversimplification, or emotional triggers. Science communicators aren’t just speaking to people anymore, they’re also navigating platforms that reward what gets clicks. How do you balance scientific integrity with these realities?

“Algorithms reward fast, emotionally charged content because that’s what society engages with. If we shift the culture towards more thoughtful, critical content, those topics could get more attention. But for now, social media is driven by metrics like views and watch time, which are constantly changing.”

“To navigate this, many science communicators diversify: they create engaging content on social media but guide their audience off-platform to spaces where deeper conversations can take place. It’s about sparking the conversation on social media and moving people toward more meaningful engagement.”

“Knowing your audience is key. When you understand them, you can create content that resonates, and social media will help get it to the right people. Once you’ve got their attention, think about the next step: how do you keep them engaged long-term? It’s not just about views; it’s about lasting impact.”

“Finally, testing is essential. Trends shift, and what works today might not tomorrow, so experimentation is key to figuring out what resonates.”

Scientists often struggle to balance accuracy and simplicity. Especially in this context of short attention spans and fast-paced social media, where do you draw the line between making science accessible and oversimplifying it?

“This comes down to understanding and adapting to your audience. When teaching workshops, I emphasize the different levels of scientific literacy and background. It’s important to know the scientific knowledge of your audience to adjust your vocabulary accordingly and ensure they understand. The goal is to keep the message accurate while meeting people where they are in terms of understanding.”

“Scientists often worry about leaving out information because they want to cover all aspects and avoid potential criticism. But the public is usually more interested in understanding the core message, not the minute details. An exercise I use during workshops with scientists is asking them to explain their research to different audiences: first as a fellow scientist, then to a 10-year-old, and finally to an elderly person with no scientific background. This helps them figure out how to adjust their message based on the listener’s background and life experiences.”

© Creators for Climate

Scientific issues are often deeply intertwined with politics and policy, which can challenge the neutrality of science communicators. In your experience, can science truly remain impartial when it’s so closely connected to political and economic systems? How do you navigate this balance in your own work?

“I think the role of science communicators is to make sure the translation between the scientific side and the policy side goes as smoothly as possible. And that includes not only helping policymakers understand science better, but also helping scientists understand policy better. What we often lack are leaders in these specific fields—leaders from within science and from within policy—who can help scale the conversation. But we can all be that leader. If you strongly feel it’s not being done enough, there’s nothing stopping you as a scientist from getting involved in policy.”

“In my own work, I try to be that bridge. Not just by starting from science and going straight to policy, but also by finding the people in policy who are bridges themselves. I try to work through networks, and with others who are also willing to connect the two sides, because that’s how you can change things from within the system.”

A common challenge in science communication is engaging with individuals who distrust science or believe in conspiracy theories. Directly confronting these views can feel like a personal attack, but staying silent could allow misinformation to spread unchecked. How do you handle these conversations, especially with people who are sceptical or even hostile?

“When engaging with people who are sceptical or hostile to science, I first try to understand their belief system. Where are they coming from? How do they make decisions? I approach the conversation as if they were a friend who’s having doubts. Instead of throwing research reports at them, I focus on having an honest, open dialogue.”

“Some people are so entrenched in their emotions that they can’t see things clearly, and it can feel like anything is an attack to them. That’s a more personal challenge to work through, but I’ve accepted that some people will always externalize things in that way. My focus is on those who are open to discussion—those who might have doubts or are questioning the information they’ve been given.”

“For example, I had a conversation with a kid during COVID who was worried about heavy metals in vaccines. After a few weeks, he sent me a DM saying he had gotten the shot. It’s about starting with a genuine conversation, building trust, and helping people work through their doubts at their own pace.”

Some argue that engaging with climate change denialists or conspiracy theorists legitimizes their views. Where do you stand? Should science communicators engage directly with denialists in public debates, or does that risk reinforcing the idea that these are just ‘two sides’ of a valid debate?

“I’ve started adopting the idea of curation: building an online community of climate creators where I’m not just talking to everyone but engaging with an actual audience. In these spaces, there are rules for how debates should happen. People can disagree, but they must do so respectfully. If conversations turn into rants or spread misinformation, I delete them.”

“Some might say this goes too far, but I see it as curating the conversation, much like you would in a debate. It’s about creating a space where people can disagree, but in a constructive way. When dealing with conspiracy theorists, especially those who attack the person instead of working with facts, it’s important to set boundaries.”

“In debates, it’s crucial to frame the discussion properly. If a debate about climate change denial is shown on TV or shared in content, it should be framed in a way that clearly shows it’s not a balanced, valid debate. One side is based on scientific evidence, and the other is not.”

“I also think we need to be mindful of how we label people. Referring to someone as a ‘conspiracy theorist’ can immediately put them on the defensive. Instead, framing the conversation in a way that respects the person but still makes it clear that misinformation has consequences can be more effective.”

© Creators for Climate

Another challenge science communicators often face is communicating urgent or emotionally heavy topics. Addressing these topics, whether related to climate, health, or other crises, can risk causing guilt, burnout, or paralysis in audiences. Is it ethical to soften messages to prevent despair, or does that risk being paternalistic? How do you navigate the balance between urgency and hope?

“To strike a balance between urgency and hope, you need to understand your audience. There’s a third of the population that’s with you, a third that’s against, and the middle ground is where you focus your efforts. Emotional storytelling plays a role here, as it can hook the audience, drawing them in with feelings of despair or urgency, but then you guide them toward hope.”

“The goal is to transform your audience from a place of fear or uncertainty into one where they feel empowered by hope. People who are afraid of the future also want to know there’s a way forward. They need to feel there’s hope. As communicators, it’s our job to guide them through that journey, just like we’ve had to do for ourselves.”

“As for withholding or softening information to avoid despair—the ethical question is whether we’re truly withholding facts or helping people build their understanding in a way that prepares them for the full picture. It’s not about manipulating; it’s about making sure they’re ready for the conversation at the right time.”

Given all the challenges we have covered and the news cycles often feeling overwhelming and discouraging, how do you stay motivated to keep communicating?

“For me, science communication is about sharing what I care about deeply. Right now, with everything happening, especially around climate change, it can feel like a lot. The way the news works, we’re often only shown the negatives. We’re biased toward expecting bad outcomes, and if you fall into that mindset, it’s easy to spiral into fear.”

“But emotions are guides. If you understand your emotions and don’t let them overtake you, it’s easier to use that fear or anger as fuel for change.”

“It’s also about finding hope. And that hope can be found when you see people, organizations, and communities working for a better future. That’s where I get my motivation: seeing others doing the same and realizing that action can bring about change.”