From: Phil Jones
To: santer, Tom Wigley
Subject: Re: Schles suggestion
Date: Wed Dec 3 13:57:09 2008
Cc: mann, Gavin Schmidt, Karl Taylor, peter gleckler
 
Ben,
 
When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to
abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one
at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all
about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing
with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental
Sciences school – the head of school and a few others) became very
supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI person quite well and the Chief
Librarian – who deals with appeals. The VC is also aware of what is
going on – at least for one of the requests, but probably doesn’t
know the number we’re dealing with. We are in double figures. [The
number of FOI requests.]
 
The inadvertent email I sent last month has led to a Data
Protection Act request sent by a certain Canadian, saying that the
email maligned his scientific credibility with his peers! If he
pays 10 pounds (which he hasn’t yet) I am supposed to go through my
emails and he can get anything I’ve written about him. About 2
months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little – if
anything at all. This legislation is different from the FOI – it is
supposed to be used to find put why you might have a poor credit
rating !

1 blowing away myths
 
Many of the oft-repeated communications methods and messages
of sustainable development have been dismissed by mainstream
communicators, behaviour change experts and psychologists.
Before we go into what works, our principles make a ‘clean sweep’
of what doesn’t:
1. Challenging habits of climate change communication
Don’t rely on concern about children’s future or human
survival instincts
Recent surveys show that people without children may care more
about climate change than those with children. “Fight or flight” human
survival instincts have a time limit measured in minutes – they are of
little use for a change in climate measured in years.
Don’t create fear without agency
Fear can create apathy if individuals have no ‘agency’ to act upon
the threat. Use fear with great caution.
Don’t attack or criticise home or family
It is unproductive to attack that which people hold dear.
2. Forget the climate change detractors
Those who deny climate change science are irritating, but
unimportant. The argument is not about if we should deal with climate
change, but how we should deal with climate change.
3. There is no ‘rational man’
The evidence discredits the ‘rational man’ theory – we rarely weigh
objectively the value of different decisions and then take the clear
self-interested choice.
4. Information can’t work alone
Providing information is not wrong; relying on information alone to
change attitudes is wrong. Remember also that messages about
saving money are important, but not that important.
 
2 a new way of thinking
Once we’ve eliminated the myths, there is room for some new
ideas. These principles relate to some of the key ideas emerging
from behaviour change modelling for sustainable development:
5. Climate change must be ‘front of mind’ before persuasion works
Currently, telling the public to take notice of climate change is
as successful as selling tampons to men. People don’t realise
(or remember) that climate change relates to them.
6. Use both peripheral and central processing
Attracting direct attention to an issue can change attitudes, but
peripheral messages can be just as effective: a tabloid snapshot
of Gwyneth Paltrow at a bus stop can help change attitudes to
public transport.
7. Link climate change mitigation to positive desires/aspirations
Traditional marketing associates products with the aspirations of
their target audience. Linking climate change mitigation to home
improvement, self-improvement, green spaces or national pride are
all worth investigating.
8. Use transmitters and social learning
People learn through social interaction, and some people are
better teachers and trendsetters than others. Targeting these
people will ensure that messages seem more trustworthy and are
transmitted more effectively.
9. Beware the impacts 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.
 
3 linking policy and communications
These principles clearly deserve a separate section. All the evidence
is clear – sometimes aggressively so – that ‘communications in the
absence of policy’ will precipitate the failure of any climate change
communications campaign right from the start:
10. Everyone must use a clear and consistent
explanation of climate change
The public knows that climate change is important, but is less clear
on exactly what it is and how it works.
11. Government policy and communications on climate change must be consistent
Don’t ‘build in’ inconsistency and failure from the start.
 
4 audience principles
In contrast to the myths, this section suggests some principles that
do work. These principles are likely to lead directly to a set of general
messages, although each poses a significant implementation challenge:
12. Create ‘agency’ for combating climate change
Agency is created when people know what to do, decide for
themselves to do it, have access to the infrastructure in which to act,
and understand that their contribution is important.
13. Make climate change a ‘home’ not ‘away’ issue
Climate change is a global issue, but we will feel its impact at home –
and we can act on it at home.
14. Raise the status of climate change mitigation behaviours
Research shows that energy efficiency behaviours can make you
seem poor and unattractive. We must work to overcome these
emotional assumptions.
15. Target specific groups
A classic marketing rule, and one not always followed by climate
change communications from government and other sources.
 
5 style principles
These principles lend some guidance on the evidence of stylistic
themes that have a high chance of success:
16. Create a trusted, credible, recognised voice on climate change
We need trusted organisations and individuals that the media can
call upon to explain the implications of climate change to the
UK public.
17. Use emotions and visuals
Another classic marketing rule: changing behaviour by
disseminating information doesn’t always work, but emotions
and visuals usually do.
 
6 effective management
These principles are drawn primarily from the experience of others,
both in their successes and in the problems they faced:
18. The context affects everything
The prioritisation of these principles must be subject to ongoing
assessments of the UK climate change situation.
19. The communications must be sustained over time
All the most successful public awareness campaigns have been
sustained consistently over many years.
20. Partnered delivery of messages will be more successful
Experience shows that partnered delivery is often a key component
for projects that are large, complex and have many stakeholders.

As many of you will be aware, a large number of emails from the University of East Anglia webmail server were hacked recently

Jones confirms his organization
has been hacked, and the data flying all over the
internet appears to have come from his organisation.
“It was a hacker. We were aware of this about
three or four days ago that someone had hacked
into our system and taken and copied loads of data
files and emails.”

Phil Jones wrote:
 
Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better
this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is
trawling
them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear
there
is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than
send
to anyone.

Hi all,
Agree with Kevin that Tom Karl has too much to do. Tom Wigley is semi
retired and like Mike Wallace may not be responsive to requests from JGR.
We have Ben Santer in common ! Dave Thompson is a good suggestion.
I'd go for one of Tom Peterson or Dave Easterling.
To get a spread, I'd go with 3 US, One Australian and one in Europe.
So Neville Nicholls and David Parker.
All of them know the sorts of things to say - about our comment and
the awful original, without any prompting.

This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the
"peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that--take over a journal!
So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a
legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate
research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also
need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently
sit on the editorial board...
What do others think?
mike