The recent hacking of the CRU and the release of 1000s of emails and documents, the most heavily circulated of which have been confirmed as accurate by the authors, has created a huge volume of reading for those so inclined. The emails seem to be receiving limited press coverage on the internet. The mainstream internet press has hardly touched on the subject except in very limited fashion and the information has received almost no TV coverage.  It is limited to news outlets commonly branded as fringe or partisan for the Republicans in the US. My knowledge of its spread beyond the anglosphere is limited by my speaking only English.

Among the other documents are budget requests as well as previously unreleased data sets and computer code requested under the UK FOIA over the last few years. One of the documents is a communication manual. It is not unreasonable to expect the most quoted and referenced scientists on this subject to have a document or two relating to good communication kicking about on their hard drives. This document is called The Rules of the Game and after a summary of general principles it neatly boils down into a numbered list. I hope you'll join me in looking through the document and briefly considering each rule. Something I found very surprising and I would like to point out now is that it doesn't use the phrases greenhouse gases, temperature increase, extinction, deforestation, arctic sea ice or refer to any climate related scientific evidence or discussion in any way.  The .pdf is available online here:   

www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/RulesOfTheGame.pdf

I strongly recommend you to read it.  Here is a fairly brief summary of my thoughts:

This is a UK government communication guideline produced by a private communications company. The uberprinciple on the first page is an honest assessment of the difficulty of the task the authors have set themselves in trying to sell AGW. However it also contains a subtler message that asserts a motif that is repeated throughout the AGW community: the beneficial nature of the objective is highlighted by associating a positive image with AGW acceptance and insinuating a tenuous connection between the idea of doubting AGW to a negative image of uncleanliness in this case. The final paragraph on this page is a frank admission that from now on the reader will not be using climate science based evidence to educate citizens about AGW. From now on we are looking at techniques based on psychological behavioral modification and marketing.

Now on to the rules:

Rule 1 I find particularly disturbing because it involves a tactic that has been and still is heavily played and is particularly cruel. To terrify someone into not questioning your agenda has no place in a democracy with freedom of speech. This strategy is the abuse of the ignorant first and foremost.  I am somewhat reassured that fear should be used with caution. What does the word 'agency' mean in this context? More on that later. Evidently in this updated version of these communication guidelines the authors not only feel the need to reduce their advocacy of the use of fear to convince people but to point out some blindingly obvious things like the idea that home and family are very dear to a great many people.

Rule 2 is immensely amusing in light of the particular Gandhi quote they chose to use at the end of the document. It is also very Orwellian in that it not only advocates ignoring dissent but then provides a new line of argument to replace a fair discourse by telling people to make a subtle shift in preposition that totally alters the nature of the debate.

Rule 3 shows an awareness of irrationality within humanity and suggests finding ways to take advantage of it.

OK rule 4 you got me. What else do we need other than information?

Rule 5 advocates repetitive exposure to on message communications in order to keep or force people to be conscious of the issue.

Rule 6 advocates among other things 'celebrity power' and pictorial rather than written information. Does this include a cult of personality like that commanded by Mr. Gore and is it perhaps in order to bypass rational responses and affect people emotionally?

As rule 7 truthfully says this is classic PR. But if the science is settled why this desire to use human nature to make the AGW agenda seem palatable?

Rule 8 is also a solid PR observation. I wonder which trendsetters they targeted and how they were targeted? Did they receive a copy of these guidelines?

Rule 9 is advising the reader to be careful when discussing behavior with people who already accept AGW. If the subject of the discussion realizes that their new found understanding of greenhouse gases and desire to save the world clashes with their owning a petrol guzzling 4x4 they may get a smaller car or they may rationalize their use of the car and not change behavior. Saying they agree isn't enough in this instance; behavioral change is the goal.

Rules 10 and 11 could both be summed up by the phrase: there must be a uniformity of opinion. The choir must be in harmony to save confusing the poor silly citizens.

Aha! Agency. Right. So agency is a blend of roadmap, motivation and reward. Where do we get agency from? Why we get it from the consensus mentioned in rules 10 and 11. Rule 13 kind of ties in well with rule 5 don't you think? How about repetitive exposure to on message communications that use celebrities to strongly suggest that there is a very good chance that terrible things may happen to YOU because of AGW unless YOU reduce your CO2 emissions? Is that a cautious use of fear and agency?

Rule 14 is simply genuinely funny. It is also about altering peoples perceptions to enhance the image of the behavior that the authors want to help propagate.

Rule 15 advocates stereotyping and labeling people in order to tailor more effective communications to that groups peccadilloes.

Rules 16 and 17 advocate using common human traits like trust and sympathy to convince people about AGW because these processes bypass the rational parts of our brains and affect us subconsciously.

Rule 18 is another way of saying use current events to support your hypothesis.  Every major natural disaster seems to be very quickly tied to AGW these days.  Yet skeptics point to the recent cool winters and are sneered and laughed at.

Rule 19 is straightforward and rule 20 seems to be advocating a united front among separate entities such as scientists, politicians and journalists as a good way of winning credibility and control of the debate.

Do you remember rule 2? To ignore the dissent? This is the Gandhi quote they chose to end their brainwashing manual with:

First they ignore you; then they laugh at you; then they fight you; then you win.
Gandhi

These rules don't seem to leave a lot of room for a free discussion, any type of legitimate dissent or loyal opposition and they seem to be aimed at forcing changes in behavior as much as opinion.   The rules are still in play if you examine proAGW press and comments in every article touching on this subject.   This manual was in the possession of the premier climate research centre in the UK and are government guidelines.   I don't think we have been trusted to make up our own minds on this issue.  Citizens get to choose.

I'd like to end on a quote as well.  Thank you for reading.

"Resistance to oppression begins by questioning the constant use of buzzwords."

Victor Klemperer