Healthy Influence Blog

The more a source uses persuasion to convince, the less science the source possesses.  Science is trump, the reality you can relabel but cannot resist.  Science is Truth and Truth don’t need no stinkin’ persuasion.  Gravity don’t need no persuasion.  E = mc² don’t need no persuasion.  Global Warming don’t need no . . .

And now we learn how climate science might be better understood as climate persuasion.  An unknown cybercriminal hacked into the computer of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, England.  This Unit is a major source for . . . I wanted to write, “science,” but that appears to be inaccurate . . . for communication about climate change with the UN and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  The hacker got into the email system with the Unit going back to 1996.  And the contents of those emails demonstrate a considerable consideration for persuasion about climate change, not for science about climate change.

I encourage you to do your own search, read the contents of these emails for yourself, and then make your own determination.  I raise no argument about the science of climate change, but only point to the obvious, consistent, and deliberate application of persuasion as a major component in the communication of this group.  I do not dispute anyone’s use of persuasion and do not find this Unit’s behavior to be illegal, unethical, or bad.  They have a position and they want to move others toward that position.  Go for it.

Just don’t call it “science.”  That, it is not.

It is persuasion, baby, and now you see the Rule:

You can be Famous or Effective, but Not Both.

The researchers at East Anglia used to be Effective at persuasion, but now they are Famous, if not InFamous.