George Marshall
11/21/2009 11:46 pm
This poor soul
wrote this just prior to the UAE Scientists working for the UN climate change
commission where they CONFESSED to FRAUD and that the e-mails snagged by
hackers and posted on the web are AUTHENIC.
The theft of 1,000 private e-mails from the
Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA) shows that deniers
have learned lessons from dirty politics (Rather
this shows that these hackers have learned lessons from Liberal Activists and
their ilk) and are running a new campaign to undermine public trust in
climate scientists. The feeble response from the UEA and the climate science
community shows that scientists are still totally underestimating the fragility
of that trust and the crucial role it plays in building public belief.
The Importance and fragility of Trust
The
lay public, when presented with confusing data and competing arguments
about climate change deploy the heuristic (a fancy word for a mentalof short
cut) of believing the people they most trust. Trust
in the communicator is therefore a crucial precondition for belief in
climate change. (This
is why biblically [Eve, Aaron, false prophets
and false teachers] and historically [FDR giving all of Eastern Europe to communist Russia,
Government Agencies [BATF, IRS]
Unions [NEA SEIU], School Teachers, Collage Professors,
Evangelists, [Almost any name that can be named] Bible Teachers [Prosperity Gospel, those that
are do not believe and interpret scripture literally, those against studying
the Greek and Hebrew Original Tezt, those who Spiritualize everything as they
teach and teach multiple greatly varrying messages from the Same Tezt or Tezts]
Self procalimed Apsotles and Prophets [Another seemingly endless list]) those People that work at becoming or those
people that are born with Great Natural Charisma so as to become trusted
sources always cause the deepest and gravest deceptions selling out time after
time Friends, Family, Peoples and Nations)
Global warming has been and is the greatest deception foisted upon the public
in history, its effects and reach are greater than anything the Mafia, Costa
Nostra, or Triads have ever been able to accomplish. This is not the illuminate, This is not the
trilateralists, this is not the Rothchilds or the builderbergers these people
are a handful of UN Reseachers, members of NASA , [Seven people so far] that
religiously and millitantly drive forward the Global warming cause.
Video Dr Time Ball Retired
Climetologist on Meaning of Hacked Emails
Video The
Importance Scientifically Checking and Verifying Data
In Medical Studies for a new medication the Government requires a
double blind study to prove the veracity of any medication. However in Global Warming, in Climate Change
Government does not care a witt about a Scientifically Checking and Verifying
Data from independent sources much less putting Hundred Trillion Dollar Program
through a urchdouble blind study to see if those things really be so.
Unfortunately the three main climate
change communicators: politicians, journalists and environmental campaigners,
are among the least trusted people in society- fighting it out for bottom place
in the ranking with lawyers and car salesmen. No one would pay any attention to them at all
if they were not drawing on the aquifer of public trust in scientists. (Note here of how this writer correctly identifies the
importance of the VOICE or the FACE of the one who speaks for a movement.
Consider that all groups in politics are ever seeking the right vessel the
right person to become the voice or face of their movement, a person that can
move the hearts, incite fears, and or bring together a people [A 1936 Hitler, a Lenin, a Mao Reagan
Climate scientists have always misunderstood the dynamic of public belief and trust. They assume that belief will be built on their data and that public trust is merited by their authority. With the exception of a few outstanding communicators, they often make no attempt to speak to deeper values or make an emotional connection with the public – indeed they see that as contrary to their professional independence.
However, whilst it is true that there is an underlying respect for scientific expertise, there are many other more emotional and contextual components to real trust. We tend to trust people we know, who seem to be like us, who speak to our values and life experience, who appear to have integrity or- that most intangible quality- people whom we seem to like.
The Deniers have always understood this. They use language that is designed to appeal to deeper values (such as freedom, independence, progress). The narrative they tell of being determined (and even persecuted) free thinkers standing against the tide of oppressive and self-interested conformity is designed to create an aura of integrity and trustworthiness.
Scientists often seek public anonymity. The only person portrayed the front page of the IPCC’s website is the long dead Alfred Nobel on the side of a gold medal. Deniers by comparison realise that trust (and distrust) is all about personalities. They promote themselves (and their personal backstories) constantly. They are not a pleasant bunch, but they get lots of practice in creating a good impression and some (such as Lomborg and Stott) can be charming in person.
And they seek to demonise real science by picking out individuals to abuse.
None more so that Dr. Michael Mann of
Hacking into UEA
The recent hacking of the servers of the
The denial industry (and hordes of climate nerds) has trawled through these e-mails and found sentences which, when removed from context, support their storyline that climate science is being deliberately distorted and exaggerated for a mixed bag of self interested and politicized ends. Even better for them, some of these quotations come from Michael Mann.
But you could find anything in here. I looked and found lots of references to lunch and fun, 94 to hate, 31 to love. Generally, though, the e-mails are extremely focused, technical, and, dare I say it, really dull. As noted on Realclimate.org, the website that Mann helped found, the e-mails contain “no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords”.
But this is hardly the point. This is an orchestrated smear campaign and does not require balance or context. The speed with which the emails have been cut apart and fed into existing storylines is remarkable. The story has been led from the beginning by the denial site climatedepot.com (I absolutely refuse to provide a hyperlink) where you find the entire page given to ‘Climategate’, ‘smoking guns’, ‘blood in the water’ – lines that have all been fed to and doltishly repeated in the mainstream media.
Swift Boating the Climate Scientists
The coordinator of climatedepot.com is Marc Morano, a libertarian right
self publicist and former aid to the outspoken denier Senator Inhofe, who has
been seeking to become a kingpin in the climate denial industry. Marc Morano is
not new to this kind of dirty fighting. According to the investigative site Source Watch,
Morano, whilst working as a journalist for the right wing Cybercast News
Service, was the first source in May 2004 of the smear campaign against
John Kerry that later became known the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
Although different in context and content, there are marked similarities between the Swift Boat campaign and the hacking of the UEA e-mails. Both were sophisticated strategies to undermine trust. Both identified trust and integrity as a major strength of the opponent and then played carefully chosen story lines to undermine them. At the very least the UEA e-mail campaign is an application of dirty political tactics to climate change campaigning.
Personally I suspect it goes further than that. The storyline is too clever,
the timing on the brink of
Call me a bastard and I’ll show you my birth certificate
And, the most disturbing similarity between the UEA hacking and the
Swiftboat campaign, is that both rely for their success on the unwillingness of
the opponent to rise to the debate and defend themselves. It is a generally
accepted analysis that Kerry’s slow response was a huge strategic mistake which
strengthened the smear. A weak response to an attack on your integrity, however
ill founded, is read as guilt.
The UEA response has been frankly pathetic. It was informed by Real Climate of the hack on Tuesday 17th but only responded reactively two days later when journalists caught onto the story. It refused to confirm whether the e-mails were accurate or not and, for a long time, refused to comment at all.
Now, in typical scientist fashion, it seeks to argue the data rationally. The UEA website states that “the selective publication of some stolen emails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way”. Mischievous? Irresponsible? What naughty pixies.
Then the CRU director, Professor Phil Jones focuses on one of quotes: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline” For the smear campaign it is only those key words trick and hide that count- the rest can be made into anything it wants. Jones ignores this and responds with a detailed technical explanation of the passage with reference to the original graphs. It’s like responding to someone calling you a bastard by showing them your birth certificate.
One can only conclude that the UEA’s communications team is totally out of its depth. A less charitable conclusion is that they are defending the interests of UEA and are not concerned about (or have not understood) the damage to climate science.
An appropriate response
So might I suggest this would have been the appropriate response for Professor
Jones: speak to every journalist who calls, go on the offensive and
defend your science. Clearly state that you are not prepared to have your hard
working and committed colleagues around the world defamed or slandered by
the kinds of people who illegally hack into computers. State that this is
a desperate last ditch tactic by fanatics who have lost the rational debate.
And how about taking action against the criminals who hacked in? The stolen emails are currently on a website called www.anelegantchaos.org that has been set up for the purpose and is linked from all the denial websites. The owner of the site has written a self important introduction about the public interest of the site and the “disappointing insights” it provides. He has also put in a function to search the stolen property.
He is probably an egotist who enjoys the attention, so I am not going to name him. However his name, address and telephone number are all on the site registration. If he had my private emails splattered all over his site he would be hearing from my lawyers – if he was lucky. The fact that there appears to have been no attempt to prevent this site is yet further evidence of the half hearted response of UEA.
Sadly, due in part to the lackluster response, I am sure that these wretched e-mails have now entered permanently into the mythology of climate denial. Scientists are going to have to be a lot more savvy and on the ball in future.