Hadley CRU hacked with release of hundreds of docs and emails

Originally posted by mushibrain
could the smarter ones enlighten me if this leak has anything to do with upcoming meeting of leaders in Copenhagen to talk about the climate change deal/treaty? if so, knowing what we know now about the leak, who leaked it, etc can we join some dots? thanks

Very likely, and if you read the Climate Audit article I just reposted it would even seem the hackers might have been motivated by yet another FOIA rejection for McIntyre.

Despite following this entire ordeal closely, I've yet to see any mention of whether or not the actual data that has been blocked from FOIA attempts by McIntyre and others is included?? I see some sorts of data I wouldn't have the foggiest of how to use in the torrent.

If it is included we might just be getting some striking updates with said data from sources such as Climate Audit...

The article below is interesting, from a historical perspective.

“Deep Cool” – the Mole within Hadley CRU

July 26, 2009

As some WUWT readers may have learned from reading Climate Audit, an anonymous source deep within Hadley CRU has provided Steve McIntyre a copy of a data file he has been seeking but has had his FOI requests to Hadley seeking the same file, rebuked.
[..]
Steve has shared this data and the source with me, as a way of verification, and I can vouch for both the validity of the data and of the source ip address. It truly comes from deep within the organization. – Anthony
[...]
I mentioned to Steve this morning via email that in addition to verifying the source, I was able to come up with a photo of the “anonymous” mole in CRU. I’ve sent him a copy.

Stay tuned.

reply to post by john124


So tell us Johny has MSNBC, CNN, and the rest of the leftwing news sources lost credibility to you because they have posted bogus stories, and made up claims?..... of course not right? The word hypocrite comes to mind...

It will take a long time to sort through and understand all of the data leaked so people don't jump to conclusions just yet.

I have long thought global warming (at least the excuses given us by TPTB) was total and complete bunk.

I hope this turns out to be real. But sadly even if it really is TPTB will say it is bunk themselves and no one will really be the wiser. This will be nothing more than any other conspiracy where it is one side’s word against the other.

Really how many would dare come out and say that yes they knew this was bunk and supported it to cause the rest us of to change the way we live through force or coercion? Do you know what the ramifications would be for that? That is not only treason to TPTB but to the people as well. Anyone stepping forward on this saying they knowingly were compliant would have in essence signed their own death warrant.

No this will be nothing more than a conspiracy true or not no one in the know is going to step out and admit it.

Raist

So the real question is has this been on tv yet? I dont watch it or have cable. I know the talk radio people were already on it friday and are surely already preparing their talking points for monday but this needs to be blasted across the tube.

Originally posted by Gamma MO
................
You are essentially saying "I don't want to think, I want to follow ... cause I get a nice warm fuzzy green feeling inside".

THIS is the problem with humanity. The sheep were ready for a new religion to come along to cast out their sins and make them feel noble and good.

Go Gamma!!!

That made me laugh my behind off, and it is true, most GREENERS are living in a fairy land created by them, and instead of telling their children stories about santa, they brainwash their children with the "AGW fairy tales"....

These sort of people DON'T CARE about science, they just want to be told their fuzzy feelings are right and that they should demand for everyone to be slaves of the AGW masters.

Mann, among some others is an idiot. This guy created a hoax "the Hockey Stick Graph" which contradicted EVERY research paper that came before it, and after it which proved that the MEdieval Warm , and the ROma Warm periods were warmer than the 20th century, but these people couldn't have that, they needed to hide, or bury this damaging truth to their cause, hence he rigged his Hockey Stick Graph, and his later papers with the blessings of some other Climatologists. Thanks heavens there have been several scientists who have come forward to try to stop this travesty.

Michael Mann, and the rest of his colleages should be stripped of their titles as climate scientists... Mann got his Phd with the same data he rigged to create the Hockey Stick graph, in which he tried to bury the Medieval Warm period through MBH98 and subsequent papers...

To try to convince people that the Medieval Warm period, and part of the Roman period were not global, and were not warm he got together with some other "environmentalists (they shouldn't be called climate scientists) and they added their flawed graphs together to try to convince everyone their data was right....

But thankfully we have had dozens, upon dozens of peer-reviewed research papers from all over the world, as well as REAL climate scientists who have been fighting for the truth and not for this travesty of AGW.

Good work to whoever hacked their site and got the 10 years of data, and emails.... If this is the way that the truth can come forward so be it...

People should wake up, and see the truth behind the Global Warming hoax, which now has been labeled as "Climate Change" because their prognostications have been wrong time, and again thanks to nature.


[edit on 21-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by john124

 

So tell us Johny has MSNBC, CNN, and the rest of the leftwing news sources lost credibility to you because they have posted bogus stories, and made up claims?..... of course not right?

The word hypocrite comes to mind...

All sources that jump to conclusions such as the examiner are all loony. I haven't read them all as to determine which have done this. The guardian has gone wacko over this, and the BBC go wacko over many other stories, but not this one! Who cares about CNN, MSNBC, ABC, DEF, GHI etc!

What is more important is that we recognise that some of these emails have being explained by RealClimate and according to the BBC - by contacts at the CRU. We should consider that the emails that sound extremely wacky could have been added by the hacker.

It's also interesting how data has been released in the US, which is almost identical to the data soon to be released by the CRU, according to RealClimate's press release. How many climate scientists have been colluding and tampering with the data? All of them? Because if they are at the CRU, then the rest will have to be involved. You realise how crazy it sounds if you were to claim a deception on this level without the evidence to back up the claim!

[edit on 21-11-2009 by john124]

Originally posted by john124
All sources that jump to conclusions such as the examiner are all loony. I haven't read them all as to determine which have done this.

Wouldn't this apply to virtually the entire global warming alarmist community?

What is more important is that we recognise that some of these emails have being explained by RealClimate and according to the BBC - by contacts at the CRU.

THis is what we call damage control.

We should consider that the emails that sound extremely wacky could have been added by the hacker.

And if they weren't added?

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Wouldn't this apply to virtually the entire global warming alarmist community?

I'm referring to jumping to conclusions over hacked emails, so no it doesn't apply.

THis is what we call damage control.

Check the paper they referred to when explaining the "hide the decline" email. It sounds a plausible explanation to me, and the evidence backs up their statement at least.

And if they weren't added?

It's pretty obvious that a lot of comments have been added to the hacked emails. The hacker doesn't exactly have credibility or ethics, as to resort to hacking, so it seems obvious to me that sceptics are the one's with an agenda that ain't science. How many rich oil tycoons would hate to lose profits, and do anything to hijack a deal on CO2 emissions?

[edit on 21-11-2009 by john124]

Originally posted by john124

Wouldn't this apply to virtually the entire global warming alarmist community?

I'm referring to jumping to conclusions over hacked emails, so no it doesn't apply.

So your own logic only applies to your philosophical enemies? Have you been taking lessons from those indicted in this thread?

THis is what we call damage control.

Check the paper they referred to when explaining the "hide the decline" email. It sounds a plausible explanation to me, and the evidence backs up their statement at least.

Please do explain what exactly he meant by the word HIDE. I tried reading their explaination and they didnt seem to address the actual word, instead just the event in general. They only seemed to explain the word "trick", unless I missed something.

And if they weren't added?

It's pretty obvious that a lot of comments have been added to the hacked emails.

You didnt answer the question. So far they've only confirmed the emails, if anything. Answer the question, please.

The hacker doesn't exactly have credibility or ethics, as to resort to hacking,

Many would say exactly the same about those indicted. And it would seem their own words would challenge 'credibility', 'ethics' and resorting to hacking!

so it seems obvious to me that sceptics are the one's with an agenda.

Sure, to not be taxed into the preindustrial age, not be subject to a communistic centralized global government, not be falsly scared to bejeezus, not have my tax dollars go to sophisticated propaganda campaigns as they are currently, etc. Could you actually muster a negative agenda that I would be motivated by here?

How many rich oil tycoons would hate to lose profits, and do anything to hijack a deal on CO2 emissions?

That's why they're all investing in 'green' energy and the rest related to the profit potential. Before the environmental movement the word green was most often used in a different way, and come to find out those who are scaring us with global warming are making greens from it to.

[edit on 21-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

So your own logic only applies to your philosophical enemies? Have you been taking lessons from those indicted in this thread?

It doesn't apply because that's not what I was talking about. Therefore it's irrelevant whether or not anyone else is jumping to conclusions in related or unrelated events, because it's not in the same context as what I stated earlier.

Please do explain what exactly he meant by the word HIDE. I tried reading their explaination and they didnt seem to address the actual word, instead just the event in general. They only seemed to explain the word "trick", unless I missed something.

Not every single graph plotted in every single climate change paper would contain all of the data the institute has collected. Some graphs will show particular time-frames if they are indicating temperature changes over this specific period of time. It's not the same as leaving the data out in every single graph, every single table of results, and every single report - which would have to be the case for it to be "hidden" from us.

You didnt answer the question. So far they've only confirmed the emails, if anything. Answer the question, please.

They've stated the emails have likely been altered. Therefore the wacko emails seem likely to be the altered ones. I'd be interested if someone could prove they aren't though, and demand a complete explanation.

Many would say exactly the same about those indicted. And it would seem their own words would challenge 'credibility', 'ethics' and resorting to hacking!

That would assume all of the emails haven't been doctored, and that's unlikely.

Sure, to not be taxed into the preindustrial age, not be subject to a communistic centralized global government, not be falsly scared to bejeezus, not have my tax dollars go to sophisticated propaganda campaigns as they are currently, etc. Could you actually muster a negative agenda that I would be motivated by here?

You seem to have failed to realise that the hacker's agenda is based on an illegal entry into a computer system, which is entirely unethical and illegal. Possibly ignoring this, and justifying the hacker's actions by calling the govt. evil names is pointless.

That's why they're all investing in 'green' energy and the rest related to the profit potential. Before the environmental movement the word green was most often used in a different way, and come to find out those who are scaring us with global warming are making greens from it to.

There's more money in polluting than non-polluting energy sources at this moment in time.

This is absolutely the best read I've had in ages, thanx for posting.

Unfortunately mainstream media here in Australia have failed to report any of this, the exception being Andrew Bolt from the Herald Sun--& if anyone was going to disclose this, it was always going to be him.

So much for "free" press, obviously how much Michael Jackson's jewelled glove got at auctionis much more important than this important news. Luckily I discovered it here at ATS

Originally posted by john124

So your own logic only applies to your philosophical enemies? Have you been taking lessons from those indicted in this thread?

It doesn't apply because that's not what I was talking about. Therefore it's irrelevant whether or not anyone else is jumping to conclusions in related or unrelated events, because it's not in the same context as what I stated earlier.

Context is irrelevent. concept is what I was aiming at. Its not ok for article publishers to 'jump to conclussions', yet it IS ok for knee jerk absolutist global warming alarmists to do so, accordingt to you, apparently.

Please do explain what exactly he meant by the word HIDE. I tried reading their explaination and they didnt seem to address the actual word, instead just the event in general. They only seemed to explain the word "trick", unless I missed something.

Not every single graph plotted in every single climate change paper would contain all of the data the institute has collected. Some graphs will show particular time-frames if they are indicating temperature changes over this specific period of time. It's not the same as leaving the data out in every single graph, every single table of results, and every single report - which would have to be the case for it to be "hidden" from us.

Weak argument. That's all there is to it. Many articles put more weight on the "trick" part, thats fine, I wouldnt even argue much about it, but HIDE immediately after trick is another story. But I will leave some room for debate... its just too bad those defending them are applying total justification in the matter, as if there is NO debate, nothing to see here. When you find this happening anywher ein the human realm, thats the bigger story than the words themselves. Good game.

You didnt answer the question. So far they've only confirmed the emails, if anything. Answer the question, please.

They've stated the emails have likely been altered. Therefore the wacko emails seem likely to be the altered ones. I'd be interested if someone could prove they aren't though, and demand a complete explanation.

Sorry, but you really still havent answered the question. Instead, you've set it up, after being cornered on the issue, to where if they did say it they only have to come up with some explaination, to which you've already established a track record of giving them the benefit of the doubt, despite the fact that they're the ones to be doubted from all of this.

Sure, to not be taxed into the preindustrial age, not be subject to a communistic centralized global government, not be falsly scared to bejeezus, not have my tax dollars go to sophisticated propaganda campaigns as they are currently, etc. Could you actually muster a negative agenda that I would be motivated by here?

You seem to have failed to realise that the hacker's agenda is based on an illegal entry into a computer system, which is entirely unethical and illegal. Possibly ignoring this, and justifying the hacker's actions by calling the govt. evil names is pointless.

If you've followed this story to the extent that I have, you'd likely have seen enough of the emails etc to realize that what they did was JUSTICE, as the concerted effort by those indicted was in fact breaking not only FOIA laws, but assaulted every notion of the scientific method (open literature and data for replicable peer review. Please read this entire thread, and perhaps the pages it links to, in entirety, take in all the 'data', and then speak to this matter in particular with actual knowledgable authority. Your responses scream that you've only skimmed over some mainstream articles white-washing certain talking points of thsi whole mess, instead of a deep and thorough analysis of all that it is and the related implications.

There's more money in polluting than non-polluting energy sources at this moment in time.

Right. Global Warming alarmism completely diverts everyone away from the issue of actual pollution, and shifts it to CO2 "contamination". Meanwhile those polluting all too often make moolah dumping toxins while racking in the dough from the 'global warmongering' campaign they've orchestrated with the controlled corporate media they've partnered with.

Do you actually believe CNN and so on care about the environment? Go to CNN.com and link in some recent investigative reports about this or that corporation dumping toxins into wherever. I was there tonight and not a word about this email ordeal, or anything else of any substance on the issue of pollution or the environment (except some other global warming is real video).

[edit on 22-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Article from Los Angeles Times:

www.latimes.com...

A climate change dust-up

One side sees hacked e-mail as a sign of a 'Warmist Conspiracy.' The other says it's being taken out of context. Analysts don't expect it to have much effect on the Senate greenhouse gas bill.


Reporting from Washington and London - Is it a "Warmist Conspiracy," or a case of an e-mail being "taken completely out of context"?

Regardless, the latest dust-up over the science of climate change appears unlikely to affect the dynamics of either a pending debate in the Senate or international climate negotiations in Copenhagen next month.

Conservative bloggers have seized on a series of e-mails between leading climate scientists, which were obtained by computer hackers and posted online last week, as evidence of a scientific conspiracy to push claims about human-caused global warming.

But advocates of action to curb global warming dismiss those claims, and political leaders and analysts say the Senate bill to limit greenhouse gas emissions will sink or swim based on economics, not science.

"The scientists are going to fight about this for decades," said Robert Dillon, a spokesman for Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, one of several Senate Republicans who say they are open to some form of a climate bill. "We should be doing something to curb our emissions that would not harm the economy, and could in fact boost the economy," he said.

The British institution at the center of the debate confirmed Saturday that its server had been hacked and that it had contacted the police to pursue an investigation of what it believes was a criminal act.

The University of East Anglia said it could not confirm the authenticity of all the hacked data, including e-mails that have been published on the Internet, because of their sheer volume.

But it accused the hackers of using the material selectively and out of context to undermine the "strong consensus" that global warming exists, and declared that such misuse of information "cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way."

An e-mail by one of the university's professors, Phil Jones, has been singled out by skeptics as proof that scientists have deliberately misled the public on the issue.

In the 1999 e-mail, Jones wrote of using a "trick" to hide an apparent decline in recent global temperatures on a chart being prepared for use by a meteorological organization. But in a statement posted on the university's website Saturday, Jones said that the e-mail had been "taken completely out of context" and that there had been no misrepresentation of data.

"The word 'trick' was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward," Jones said.

Skeptics of man-made global warming disagreed, trumpeting the e-mails online. "The Death Blow to Climate Science," one website headlined. Another hailed a "Warmist Conspiracy."

Last week, the leading Republican on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, declared 2009 "The Year of the Skeptic"; on Saturday, a spokesman for environment committee Republicans, Matt Dempsey, said the e-mails, if authentic, "would have a profound impact on the debate" over the climate bill.

Advocates of the bill disagreed. "The science is clearly on the side of those who are concerned the world is warming," said Joshua Freed, a senior advisor for clean energy at the think tank Third Way.

The e-mail controversy, said Josh Dorner, a spokesman for the pro-climate bill group Clean Energy Works, "does absolutely nothing to change the fact that we are now closer than ever before to reaching binding international and domestic deals. We have a path to success in the Senate and at Copenhagen and beyond."

A clear majority of senators appears to back some action to curb greenhouse gas emissions. President Obama and congressional leaders have framed their support for the bill largely in terms of its potential to create "clean energy" jobs in the United States.

And more from The Washington Post

In the trenches on climate change, hostility among foes

Stolen e-mails reveal venomous feelings toward skeptics

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 22, 2009


Electronic files that were stolen from a prominent climate research center and made public last week provide a rare glimpse into the behind-the-scenes battle to shape the public perception of global warming.

While few U.S. politicians bother to question whether humans are changing the world's climate -- nearly three years ago the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded the evidence was unequivocal -- public debate persists. And the newly disclosed private exchanges among climate scientists at Britain's Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia reveal an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies.

In one e-mail, the center's director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes.

"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Jones replies.

Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute who comes under fire in the e-mails, said these same academics repeatedly criticized him for not having published more peer-reviewed papers.

"There's an egregious problem here, their intimidation of journal editors," he said. "They're saying, 'If you print anything by this group, we won't send you any papers.' "

Mann, who directs Penn State's Earth System Science Center, said the e-mails reflected the sort of "vigorous debate" researchers engage in before reaching scientific conclusions. "We shouldn't expect the sort of refined statements that scientists make when they're speaking in public," he said.

Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute who has questioned whether climate change is human-caused, blogged that the e-mails have "the makings of a very big" scandal. "Imagine this sort of news coming in the field of AIDS research," he added.

The story of the hacking has ranked among the most popular on Web sites ranging from The Washington Post's to that of London's Daily Telegraph. And it has spurred a flood of e-mails from climate skept
[...]

Due to lack of space, the article continues here

While this is serious, I've seen just as many news articles detailing studies, memos, and "secret reports" indicating that the impact of human activity on global warming is actually underplayed and hushed up for political agendas. I've seen so much evidence for both sides of the argument that I just don't know who or what to believe.

Thus, my opinion on global warming and other forms of climate change remains the same: regardless of the cause, we have to live with it and should prepare accordingly, including seeking ways to negate its impact on our way of life, health, and safety.

Originally posted by john124
It's pretty obvious that a lot of comments have been added to the hacked emails. The hacker doesn't exactly have credibility or ethics, as to resort to hacking, so it seems obvious to me that sceptics are the one's with an agenda that ain't science.

How is it obvious that they have been "added to"? Does simply going against what you believe automatically make it false? Because that's what you seem to be implying. I haven't seen anyone saying that any files have been conclusively proven to be altered, yet some have have been confirmed as genuine. So I don't know how it's so obvious to you that they've been altered. Care to elaborate?

And you can hardly use the fact that they were hacked, as justification to dismiss them. If these emails are in fact genuine, which there is no reason to doubt at this stage, there are potentially damaging conversations that go right to the core of AGW "science". If that's the case, then IMO, this hacker has done the people a favor, no matter how much you cry about ethics. Laws are meant to protect the people, not crooked or corrupt interests who are intentionally deceiving us.

But what I've been wondering is this...

Phil Jones wrote:
>
>> Mike,
> Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
> Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.
>
> Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't
> have his new email address.
>
> We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
>
> I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature
> paper!!
>
> Cheers
> Phil

excerpt from this txt file (1212063122)


If this email is genuine, then do we have access to these apparently deleted emails regarding AR4?

Because if not, then we can assume that any other potentially damaging emails may also be missing (deleted). And if this is only a sample of the full content of hacked data, then there could be even more embarrassing emails we haven't seen. If this is the case, then posts like this...

Originally posted by melatonin
Thousands personal and private emails between major figures in climate science all supposedly involved in one of the biggest conspiracies ever - thousands of scientists all over the world and over a hundred years of research all wanting to take your dummy and form a NWO based on environazi socialist vegetarianism...

yet...nada...

Originally posted by melatonin
So after after many hours of the private and personal thoughts in thousands of emails over a decade of top figures in climate science, this is still all you have?
Hmmm...
Smear, smear, spread doubt and fear.

...are completely irrelevant. But then again, who didn't expect some posters here to quickly jump to the defense of these "scientists".

A previous poster mentioned that there may be software able to determine the authenticity of these emails. Can anyone here do that? That way people can't simply hide behind a curtain of doubt, and we can really get to the bottom of the context of the more "potentially damaging" emails.

After all, that's what where all after isn't it. The truth?

mail 1256214796 speakes of a crisis in the climate team and the coverup ?

A related article from Salem-news about mass manipulation evidence found in the archive:

Greenscam: Scientific Mass Manipulation in Action

Ersun Warnke Salem-News.com Business/Economy Reporter
If the goal is to produce a dumb animal that will walk calmly into the slaughterhouse, then providing this animal with information would be grossly counterproductive.


(EUGENE, Ore.) - Recently, a large number of internal documents from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia were posted onto the internet by an anonymous source.

One of the documents from this collection of information is a short pamphlet put out by the “communications agency” (i.e. free-market ministry of propaganda) Futerra Sustainability Communications, which is headquartered in London and has offices in New York. Futerra, according to their website, specializes in propaganda focused on buzz words like “green,” “ethical,” “climate change,” and “corporate responsibility.”

The contents of this pamphlet are not revolutionary in the field of propaganda, but they show very plainly how modern propaganda techniques are employed. Propaganda, also known as advertising, public relations, or communications, is focused on mass persuasion. It is a multi-billion dollar industry that both relies on academic research, and funds academic research into human behavior. The purpose of this intensive study of human behavior is to discover new methods of mass manipulation.

The pamphlet I am reviewing here is focused on “communicating” to the public concerning climate change. This pamphlet is the property of Futerra, and I am sure that they charge an obscenely high price for it, which would typically prevent the public from ever seeing it. Due to copyright laws, I can only present excerpts of the pamphlet, for the purpose of review and criticism.

The title of the pamphlet is “The rules of the game.” It is explained that “The game is communicating climate change; the rules will help us win it.”

The rules are as follows:

“Blowing away myths”

“Don't rely on concern about children's future – Recent surveys show that people without children may care more about climate change.”

Surveys show people really have no humanity at all, so why bother trying to appeal to it. Realpolitik was the seventies, now we have Realpsychotique.

“Don't … criticize – It is unproductive to attack that which people hold dear.”

Dumb animals will never change their behavior, so don't even bother trying to convince them to.

“There is no rational man”

See comment above.

“A new way of thinking”

“telling the public to take notice of climate change is as successful as selling tampons to men.”

Very edgy. Good way to let the reader know that even though you are a tool and a shill you are still hip, and maybe even a bit rebellious.

“Use both peripheral and central processing – direct attention can change attitudes … peripheral messages are just as effective. [example:] snapshot of Gwyneth Paltrow at a bus stop can help change attitudes toward public transport.”

“Central processing” is rational argument, “peripheral processing” is sub-conscious irrational persuasion.

“Link climate change mitigation to … home improvement, self improvement, green spaces or national pride”

Repetitive association is a very common propaganda technique. The principal is to create a linkage in the mind of the target between two otherwise unrelated ideas by continually repeating them together in the same context. This is the majority of television advertising. Think: pretty women and sh#@*y beer, or just about any other product sold to men.

“Use transmitters and social learning – targeting [trendsetters] will ensure that messages seem more trustworthy”.

Who cares if the underlying message is true? Just make sure you convince Rush Limbaugh and Al Gore.

“Beware of cognitive dissonance – Confronting someone with the difference between their attitude and their actions on climate change will make them more likely to change their attitude than their actions.”

Don't point out peoples' hypocrisy, that will only push them into denial. Instead, turn their hypocrisy into righteous indignation and get them to support policies that will force other people to bear the costs of their environmentally destructive behavior.

Linking policy and communications

“Everyone must use a clear and consistent explanation of climate change”

Scientific uncertainty? We've heard of it...

Audience Principles

“Research shows that energy efficiency behaviors can make you seem poor and unattractive. We must work to overcome these emotional assumptions.”

A tiny wealthy elite is responsible for the majority of consumption. The envy and hatred of the rest of the population for this elite must be propagandized out of existence. How else can we convince them to reduce their consumption even more, so that the elite can maintain their grandiose standards of living?

Style Techniques

“Create a trusted, credible, recognised voice on climate change.”

Trusted, credible, recognized voices on climate change don't exist. They must be created by propaganda firms.

“Use emotions and visuals – Classic marketing rule: information doesn't always work … emotions and visuals usually do.”

Information and rational persuasion don't work when you are trying to persuade people to engage in irrational and self-destructive behaviors. If the goal is to produce a dumb animal that will walk calmly into the slaughterhouse, then providing this animal with information would be grossly counterproductive.

Effective Management

“Communications must be sustained over time.”

Persuasion through irrational arguments and sub-conscious manipulation requires mass repetition, which takes persistence.

“Partnered delivery of messages will be more successful.”

Call your friends at the newspapers, tell them you are already backed by several major corporations, and that a handful of up-and-coming/washed-out celebrities are supporting your cause. Once you have a publishing date for the article, call your friends at the television news networks, and offer them your pre-packaged propaganda reel to run on their nightly broadcast. Post it on your Twitter page from your Iphone, because, like, Twitter is so the hot new thing.

Conclusion

This pamphlet is interesting, not because of its sophistication, but because of its audacity. The theories describe here are unoriginal, and many have been in use for decades already. A lot of this pop-psychology is really amateurish, but it reveals the contempt that the authors have for truth, the public, and public policy. The fact that this pamphlet is published by one of the leading propaganda firms advising the government of the UK on climate change “communications” gives you an idea of the attitudes of the elected officials who consume this garbage.

Remember: the future survival, health, and well being of humanity and the planet is a game. The rules of this game can be laid out on a few glossy pages by a team of hack PR shills regurgitating pop-psychology. This must be credible, because it is bought and paid for by major governments, corporations, and universities. As they say, “there is no rational man.”

[edit on 2009-11-22 by Shirakawa]