The state of Montana serves as a useful example of how communication breakdowns help perpetuate a research-policy mismatch on climate change. A close examination of media and policy discourses on climate science reveals confusion about the meaning of science and unaddressed questions about Montana livelihoods. Quantitative analysis of the content of these discourses reveals important differences regarding privileged voices in the media vs. in the halls of policy. The discourses together reveal openings that could be used to talk about climate in Montana in different, untried ways---specifically, exploring the risk model of climate communication now used by the insurance industry and by federal management agencies, and trying innovative shared-governance strategies for addressing climate issues.