Sometimes it is hard to remember why people make a fuss about climate change and global warming. In the politically charged arena of online advocacy the language of the issues has been framed by the denihilist procrastinators, so that most discussions of consequences revolve around whether or not climate change is 'catastrophic', whether or not warnings are 'alarmist' (crying wolf), whether or not projections of harm with large uncertainties are useful for policy discussions.
All of these, deliberately, miss the point, the reasons why action to mitigate and adapt are urgent, and reveal the moral vacuum which is inhabited by too many people these days.
So, here is a reminder of why I bother to have a blog and to comment on websites and fora such as Quora. These are my reasons. Some co-bloggers will have similar motives, others will have their own, but for me, this is the bottom line.
People will suffer.
Recent work has shown the link which already exists between both emergency and systemic situations and their consequences. Not just storms, floods and wildfires, which make dramatic TV and therefore feature in the media, but drought, seasonal shifts threatening food supply chains, evapo-transpiration effects, disease vector changes; there is really quite a long list.
Inasmuch as these measured effects are either affected or exacerbated by the changing climate - and the argument is not that they are not affected, but the extent to which a measurable difference can be identified and isolated - the problems which exist now are overshadowed by the problems which will exist soon.
So, people have already suffered, and more people will suffer. Many more.
There is a strong general agreement that, whilst balancing other social factors, a move to reduce the upper limit of the changes down the line (through mitigation) will actually reduce the extent and degree of suffering.
Recent discussions on Quora have enlightened me to contemporary attitudes to the harm expected from climate change; there are people who think this is not important, that the suffering of others does not matter.
At the more radical end, it would be surprising if others hadn't worked out what I have calculated and reached the conclusion that by the end of this century, and quite likely well before this, many millions of people will have either died or been permanently displaced by the various upheavals which result from and are magnified by climate change. For some people, this is perceived as a 'good thing'.
So there are already two opposing forces pulling in different directions when it comes to the question of why climate mitigation is necessary.
On one side, we have identified that people are suffering and will suffer, and that at least some of this suffering is preventable. Our duty/responsibility is clear - if we can act to reduce the suffering of others, we should act. This is a baseline in the very notion of society. There is a further principle too, that if we choose not to act when we have the means to do so, then we are culpable in that suffering. Most particularly, our political leaders, who have executive power and common responsibility, are on the line for allowing suffering without intervention or assistance, where these would prevent it.
On the other side, we are conscious that population stress is another magnifier of suffering and that environmental and ecological problems, along with infrastructure problems, in part exist because of the strain put on them by increased consumption demand purely from the pressure of numbers. An analyst taking the very long view might conclude that allowing a degree of suffering for the time being, so that population pressures are eased down the line, could be a better solution.
But this is very harsh on the victims. One reason why climate impact projections focus on economic or environmental damage is that these have a degree of measurability and are thus amenable to modelling. Conversely, the extent and degree of human suffering - people being harmed, is much more difficult to quantify, since it is also affected by a cluster of magnifiers and causes which are more or less connected to climate. Nonetheless, the IPCC, WHO, UNEP and UNHCR. along with other agencies, have placed their analysis in the public record, and it makes for ugly reading.
The more recent projections suggest that there will be several million additional premature (and unnecessary) deaths from climate related impacts by 2050 alone. The current estimates include 160,000 per year already in the system, rising to 250,000 a year out to 2030-2050.
Later, I'll write about the error we make in assessing the personal consequences of climate inaction, but there is still a lot more to say.
For the time being, let this sink in. Not very long ago, there was no doubt that the untimely deaths of six million people as a consequence of a state policy was such an appalling crime that the perpetrators with command responsibility were tried and executed for their decisions. This was the Holocaust.
What is the material difference, especially to the victims, between that situation and this? What is the moral difference between that situation and this? For those who promote caution or outright denial of the issues linked to climate change, I ask - are you, morally, any better than those people? Are you, in effect, wearing a symbol-laden armband in support of the unspeakable? How will you be judged?
Showing posts with label denial. Show all posts
Showing posts with label denial. Show all posts
Wednesday, 8 February 2017
Tuesday, 7 April 2015
In defence of Tol, or not
This morning's exchange with Richard Tol at the Guardian allowed me the opportunity to raise a point which I think needs to be clear to people engaged in climate science discussions online: Tol is not a hardcore denialist.
Below is what has appeared so far. The point is Richard's central comment, divided into four parts:
off topic, and in the public record
- climate is changing
- greenhouse gas emissions are a major cause
- climate change is, in the long-term, net harmful
- polarization a la Nuccitelli hampers climate policy
No problem with points one and two, and all those who love or hate RSJT on the basis that he is a denial monkey should read and digest.
Point three is of course a key matter and IMO worth engaging in discussions about. Where Tol sometimes seems to miss the point is that climate change is, ipso facto, a long-term problem (it may also be a short-term problem, but this is open to discussion, too). The point is that his qualifier 'in the long term' is redundant. There is a tendency for people to extrapolate from this idea that it is not a 'problem' in the short term, therefore it is not necessary to create mitigation policy now. To reach this conclusion is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the risks and problems which science has highlighted.
Which brings us to point four. Richard accuses Dana of polarising the issues and thereby obstructing policy. Anyone familiar with his track record will find this a most peculiar claim, since Tol has allowed those who wish to obstruct policy, notably the GWPF, a number of Tory MPs and people such as Matt Ridley to persistently misrepresent his work without correction, whilst at the same time offering self as critic to those, such as Cook and Nuccitelli, who are clear advocates of policy action.
I believe that Richard Tol believes himself to be a rational, impartial observer, but you have to judge a person (insofar as judgment is required) on what they do, not just on what they say. By this parameter, Tol has by default placed himself in the 'denial' camp. if this sits uncomfortably with him he must respond to it. By distancing himself from the people who misrepresent him to obstruct climate policy he can undo some of the harm already caused by these people. Should he feel no obligation or responsibility to so do, one feels inclined to presume that he is satisfied with this state of affairs, and by implication supportive of it. In which case he should stop whinging about the whole thing and accept that to many people he is a 'bad guy' and his actions (or inactions) prove him so.
Come on Richard, show your capacity for decency. There is a very important discussion of policy to be had and it could benefit from your input, but before that you need to detach yourself from your current reputation. Will you do that?
Below is what has appeared so far. The point is Richard's central comment, divided into four parts:
off topic, and in the public record
- climate is changing
- greenhouse gas emissions are a major cause
- climate change is, in the long-term, net harmful
- polarization a la Nuccitelli hampers climate policy
No problem with points one and two, and all those who love or hate RSJT on the basis that he is a denial monkey should read and digest.
Point three is of course a key matter and IMO worth engaging in discussions about. Where Tol sometimes seems to miss the point is that climate change is, ipso facto, a long-term problem (it may also be a short-term problem, but this is open to discussion, too). The point is that his qualifier 'in the long term' is redundant. There is a tendency for people to extrapolate from this idea that it is not a 'problem' in the short term, therefore it is not necessary to create mitigation policy now. To reach this conclusion is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the risks and problems which science has highlighted.
Which brings us to point four. Richard accuses Dana of polarising the issues and thereby obstructing policy. Anyone familiar with his track record will find this a most peculiar claim, since Tol has allowed those who wish to obstruct policy, notably the GWPF, a number of Tory MPs and people such as Matt Ridley to persistently misrepresent his work without correction, whilst at the same time offering self as critic to those, such as Cook and Nuccitelli, who are clear advocates of policy action.
I believe that Richard Tol believes himself to be a rational, impartial observer, but you have to judge a person (insofar as judgment is required) on what they do, not just on what they say. By this parameter, Tol has by default placed himself in the 'denial' camp. if this sits uncomfortably with him he must respond to it. By distancing himself from the people who misrepresent him to obstruct climate policy he can undo some of the harm already caused by these people. Should he feel no obligation or responsibility to so do, one feels inclined to presume that he is satisfied with this state of affairs, and by implication supportive of it. In which case he should stop whinging about the whole thing and accept that to many people he is a 'bad guy' and his actions (or inactions) prove him so.
Come on Richard, show your capacity for decency. There is a very important discussion of policy to be had and it could benefit from your input, but before that you need to detach yourself from your current reputation. Will you do that?
12
I particularly like the bit where Mr Nuccitelli tells Dr Spencer what Dr Spencer really thinks.
Reply
Report
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
Kudos due for paying attention and bothering to respond. TY. I sort of know this anyway, really, because I've read your (available) papers. But people often misunderstand you - probably because you are as guilty as Dana of stirring things up, so I think the polarisation comment is a bit rich.
I know many 'denial' commenters such as Ridley etc depend heavily on your work, especially as distorted by Lomborg via Copenhagen, but you never seem to spend time correcting their misunderstandings or inaccuracies. As a result, there's a tendency to place you one one side of 'the divide'. This may be unfair in your eyes, but it is perfectly understandable in mine.
Polarization? Isn't that the bread and butter of journalism? I agree it can be frustrating, but via friends in the USA it is clear that there the discussions are not just polarised, they are politicised.
Thursday, 28 August 2014
On the impossibility of dialogue
In the
busy thread below, this extended comment appeared. It contains some thinking
which requires extended response, so I’ve done a lift and here it is up front.
The
context is that the correspondent is a regular presence on the internet,
commenting on climate change and global warming. His view and mine are
different.
In the
comment, he tries to explain why he thinks the way he does, to which I offer my
efforts to understand.
Please
note that his first language is not English, and make allowance that some of
the expressions, which might sound abrasive, may be a function of linguistic
difference, not necessarily aggression.
Here
we go:
Let me suggest something: Pull
back and consider that I am convinced you act in good faith and are honest, but
you have been brainwashed.
I too have been brainwashed.
The only difference is that I´m aware of the brainwashing and you seem to be
oblivious (like 99 % of the population).
This
is not a promising start. You set out by claiming your intellectual superiority
to me, in that you have a privileged (and superior) epistemic status, because I
am not aware that the world as I understand it is relative. I might be inclined
to disagree with this.
The brainwashing isn´t the
result of an overarching conspiracy. Some of it is genetic, some of it is
deeply ingrained culture, some is early education, and some of it is impressed
on you by the media, your friends, and your enemies.
Being brainwashed seems to be a
positive survival trait in homo sapiens. Although many brainwashed populations
were defeated and driven to extinction, others which practiced brainwashing as
a higher art form, or got a bit luckier seem to have survived more often thanks
to this brainwashing, which aligned most of society with the leadership, and
moved them to perform as requested.
This
is somewhat helpful. You are trying to describe your hypothesis, that our
perception of reality is conditioned. In particular, you emphasise the social
context of individual development (or call it the means by which I form my
Weltanschauung (‘World-view’).
Thus my position is that a lot
of what we believe is real isn´t really there. As my grandchildren would say,
it´s all bogus.
Though
your expression is a little clumsy, what is coming out seems to be a much
simplified version of the ideas of Paul Feyerabend, for example, in ‘Against
Method’. Feyerabend’s views are well summarised in Wkipedia (here).
So how does this impact the way
I absorb information about global warming? First, I know there are actors
trying to manipulate me to behave in a certain way. Why? Because whenever an
issue arises which involves government decisions, subsidies, taxes, putting a
drilling rig on the public library grounds, and moves like that I have to be
manipulated to accept such decisions.
The
position gets a bit more complicated here. This is because you introduce the
Political realm. What you seem to be saying is that the information which is
available about global warming has the same epistemological status as the
information which we get from politicians or their employees. I think some
people might object to this.
Do you see why you really can´t
change my mind? As far as you are concerned I´m a ghost. I live in a different
universe. You are trying to debate global warming, and I debate the way
"they" manipulate us.
A part
of the complexity is that you seem to have thoroughly mixed your resistance to
political manipulation and your view of the nature of scientific endeavour. To
you, these are manifestations of the same phenomenon – the untrustworthiness of
given knowledge – and therefore they are the same thing. You reject Science as
a whole, wholesale.
And why do you think you
avoided the subject when I tried to use Kosovo and Iraq as talkng points?
Because your comfort zone is in global warming and the associated science. You
want to feel comfortable surrounded by your friends, sitting in a tall stone
tower from which you can fling arrows and stones at the enemy trying to scale
your walls.
Here,
you are making presumptions about me which are not justified. I avoid
discussing Kosovo or Iraq because I do not believe I have sufficient knowledge
or understanding to comment on these subjects; I have no expertise or opinion
which I trust.
And
your characterisation of me in the second sentence is laughable. I have spent considerable
time addressing your point of view and defending your right to express
yourself, even when you have been illogical and inconsistent, yet you accuse me
of attacking you. If you still see me as your enemy I would suggest that the
problem lies not in my attitude but in yours. You have already decided that we
must be enemies, so I cannot have any understanding of you or any human
compassion. This means I cannot win. Your mind is closed to my humanity and
identity; to you, I am just ‘one of them’. So who is acting in bad faith, you,
or me?
On the other hand, I see this
behavior as normal, quite human, and also misguided.
How
very patronising and wise of you.
Almost everybody is the same.
And this is why in the 21st century we see children being slaughtered with
laser guided bombs in Palestine, and we look the other way. We have been
brainwashed to accept this, and we can´t even bring ourselves to discuss it.
And the odds are this post may even be censored, isn´t it?
Since
I have both permitted every statement you have made on this blog, and defended
your right of comment, even when it pushed libellous status, you have no
grounds whatsoever to imply I might censor you, so this is just a personal
insult.
To sum
things up as best I can. You claim to be my intellectual superior. You set out
a view of how the world (of understanding, or knowledge) is constructed. In
this, you explicitly reject Science wholesale; to you, it is just as much in
error as political propaganda. You frequently draw parallels between political
events and scientific knowledge. You then remind me of why I am ignorant and
accuse me first of being your enemy, then of repressing you, in spite of the visible
contradiction of these in this blog.
Where
does this leave me? If, as you say, all science is deception, then we cannot
talk about science – not at all – by your terms there is nothing meaningful to
say about it. But neither can we talk about anything which we might
think of as being a shared human experience. So we cannot have any dialogue.
Besides this, you have demonstrated that you do not respect me as an individual
or as a human being; in particular, to you I am an inferior being. So you deny
me any motivation to continue the effort to engage with you. Finally, you have
established that, whatever I say and however I say it, you have determined that
I am your enemy. I don’t need enemies, I want friends.
In
conclusion, by your terms and rules, since there is nothing ‘true’ to say about
science, every comment you make on science is a piece of hypocrisy.
Furthermore, on your terms, nobody understands how things really are better
than you, so you will never consider the possibility that you might be wrong,
or the possibility that anyone else might have anything valid to say. This,
too, given your views on propaganda, is hypocrisy. You deny the subject, the
means, and the motivation to engage in dialogue. You have determined that discourse
is impossible, so, unless you give me some reason to believe otherwise, I can
do nothing better than remain silent.
For
now, that is all I have to say on the subject.
Wednesday, 28 May 2014
CLIMATE CHANGE: THE TROUBLE WITH NIGEL LAWSON
So, yesterday the once Chancellor presents his latest ‘essay’
on the familiar subject, ‘Global Warming is Good for You’.
The summary, which is presented as an Article at the GWPF,
drew the Old Man’s attention, and so, helpfully, he thought to provide a little
annotation or two to help the ‘Lay Reader’ traverse the words…
Date: 27/05/14 Nigel Lawson, Global Warming Policy
Foundation
Climate change
alarmism is a belief system, and needs to be evaluated as such.
Grains of truth and undermining.
It is probable that some people who are alarmed about climate change are
inclined to accept the evidence provided partly on faith, since they lack the
academic tools to evaluate the science. But Climate change itself is the target
here, and the implication is that there is no scientific basis on which to
work, which is, of course, false. Where the old Man agrees with Lawson is that
extreme views tend towards the irrational. Ore on this below.
There is something odd about the global warming debate — or
the climate change debate, as we are now expected to call it, since global
warming has for the time being come to a halt.
Yes, there is; first, there is
no ‘debate’ about Global Warming/climate change, within science, only at the
Policy end. And global warming has not come to a halt, so the last statement is
a simple falsehood.
I have never shied away from controversy, nor — for example,
as Chancellor — worried about being unpopular if I believed that what I was
saying and doing was in the public interest.
It is actually mildly plausible
that L. believes that he works in the public interest, but only insofar as we
may imagine any politician does the same; of course they do, but idealism is
rapidly driven out by the survival instinct in politics, and generally, we
remain suspicious of politicians claiming to act from some noble altruistic
motive. This is less to do with belief than with experience; we do not all
forget the lessons of history…
But I have never in my life experienced the extremes of
personal hostility, vituperation and vilification which I — along with other
dissenters, of course — have received for my views on global warming and global
warming policies.
So, now L. has, perhaps, had a
small taste of the experience meted out by those whom he encourages, to those
whom he opposes. Are we supposed to feel sorry for him?
For example, according to the Climate Change Secretary, Ed
Davey, the global warming dissenters are, without exception, “wilfully
ignorant” and in the view of the Prince of Wales we are “headless chickens”.
Not that “dissenter” is a term they use. We are regularly referred to as
“climate change deniers”, a phrase deliberately designed to echo “Holocaust
denier” — as if questioning present policies and forecasts of the future is
equivalent to casting malign doubt about a historical fact.
Putting aside the obvious point
that these people are simply using the terminology generally in use, rather
than specifically implying malignity, that final word choice is an interesting
one, because in this respect there is something important to understand; many
of Lawson’s detractors probably do attribute a malign intent in his words and
actions, which may be wrong, and even unfair, but is not entirely
incomprehensible, given the track record enjoyed by, for example, the Koch ‘people’.
The heir to the throne and the minister are senior public
figures, who watch their language. The abuse I received after appearing on the
BBC’s Today programme last February was far less restrained. Both the BBC and I
received an orchestrated barrage of complaints to the effect that it was an
outrage that I was allowed to discuss the issue on the programme at all. And
even the Science and Technology Committee of the House of Commons shamefully
joined the chorus of those who seek to suppress debate.
At the time, it seemed like most
of the complaints were about ‘false balance’, and the fact that a political
figure was chosen to ‘debate’ what was meant to be a scientific discussion.
This is a strange reversal of history, and was not about ‘suppressing debate’,
as L. suggests, but about a presenting a balanced view of the current state of
scientific knowledge and the (very small) voice of dissent within that context.
No – not ‘suppresses debate’, but ‘demanding honesty and fairness’…
In fact, despite having written a thoroughly documented book
about global warming more than five years ago, which happily became something
of a bestseller, and having founded a think tank on the subject — the Global
Warming Policy Foundation — the following year, and despite frequently being
invited on Today to discuss economic issues, this was the first time I had ever
been asked to discuss climate change. I strongly suspect it will also be the
last time.
(Let’s hope the Beeb has got it
out of its system. Personally, I think it might be interesting to invite Benny
Peiser to discuss ‘the global warming debate’, since the result might actually
be informative)
The BBC received a well-organised deluge of complaints —
some of them, inevitably, from those with a vested interest in renewable energy
— accusing me, among other things, of being a geriatric retired politician and
not a climate scientist, and so wholly unqualified to discuss the issue.
Another amusing reversal – and also
extremely unlikely. Who does L. believe ‘orchestrated’ the deluge of
complaints? Perhaps it was one of those Renewable Energy companies which
despoil the planet for profit… as for that final point, it seems less of an
accusing than a simple (if impolite) statement. This isn’t accusing, this is
simply blunt speech.
Perhaps, in passing, I should address the frequent
accusation from those who violently object to any challenge to any aspect of
the prevailing climate change doctrine, that the Global Warming Policy
Foundation’s non-disclosure of the names of our donors is proof that we are a
thoroughly sinister organisation and a front for the fossil fuel industry.
Well, yes, there are people who
say this, but they aren’t necessarily ‘those
who violently object to any challenge to any aspect of the prevailing climate
change doctrine’. And who are these people anyway? Do they actually exist?
It seems as if L. is creating a dragon to slay, by constructing a frightening
and irrational antagonist. Note also the insertion of the term ‘doctrine’, just
to emphasise the primary claim of irrationality which is the supposed basis of
the article.
As I have pointed out on a number of occasions, the
Foundation’s Board of Trustees decided, from the outset, that it would neither
solicit nor accept any money from the energy industry or from anyone with a
significant interest in the energy industry. And to those who are
not-regrettably-prepared to accept my word, I would point out that among our
trustees are a bishop of the Church of England, a former private secretary to the
Queen, and a former head of the Civil Service. Anyone who imagines that we are
all engaged in a conspiracy to lie is clearly in an advanced stage of paranoia.
Perhaps such a person is less
paranoid than cynical. And this particular idea ‘conspiracy to lie’, appears to
be a strawman. Perhaps L. should be grateful to those who, rather than presume
he is, on this subject, being dishonest, are more inclined to believe him an
idiot or fool, on the basis that what is, to them, self evident, is, to him,
false, and vice versa. Given the choice between believing the global warming
opinions of an atmospheric physicist or those of a bishop, one might be
forgiven for imagining that the former is more rational.
The reason why we do not reveal the names of our donors, who
are private citizens of a philanthropic disposition, is in fact pretty obvious.
Were we to do so, they, too, would be likely to be subject to the vilification
and abuse I mentioned earlier. And that is something which, understandably,
they can do without.
This is not the place to raise
the issue of personal privacy rights, and the comparative protections which
exist for the ‘privileged’ and the ‘common person’. Suffice to say that ganders
and geese really should share their sauce.
That said, I must admit I am strongly tempted to agree that,
since I am not a climate scientist, I should from now on remain silent on the
subject — on the clear understanding, of course, that everyone else plays by
the same rules. No more statements by Ed Davey, or indeed any other politician,
including Ed Milliband, Lord Deben and Al Gore. Nothing more from the Prince of
Wales, or from Lord Stern. What bliss!
But of course this is not going to happen. Nor should it;
for at bottom this is not a scientific issue. That is to say, the issue is not
climate change but climate change alarmism, and the hugely damaging policies
that are advocated, and in some cases put in place, in its name. And alarmism
is a feature not of the physical world, which is what climate scientists study,
but of human behaviour; the province, in other words, of economists,
historians, sociologists, psychologists and — dare I say it — politicians.
In the same way that a ‘dissenter’
might object to the implications of using the term ‘denier’, a scientist who
sees which way the cookie is crumbling and provides observations of said
cookie, might object to the implication that such observations are ‘alarmist’, ie,
irrational. But of course, this is not ablout the science, because the science
contradicts L. consistently and irrevocably.
And en passant, the problem for dissenting politicians, and
indeed for dissenting climate scientists for that matter, who certainly exist,
is that dissent can be career-threatening. The advantage of being geriatric is
that my career is behind me: there is nothing left to threaten.
Indeed, one who embraces the
motley is likely to be imagined a jester.
But to return: the climate changes all the time, in
different and unpredictable (certainly unpredicted) ways, and indeed often in
different ways in different parts of the world. It always has done and no doubt
it always will. The issue is whether that is a cause for alarm — and not just
moderate alarm. According to the alarmists it is the greatest threat facing
humankind today: far worse than any of the manifold evils we see around the
globe which stem from what Pope called “man’s inhumanity to man”.
So let’s summarise the GWPF’s
world view then: global warming is just natural (ho, hum). Is it a cause for
alarm? On appropriate timescales, the inevitable collapse of the WAIS might be
considered to be a bit worrying, for example, but really, the number and depth
of the changes wrought by GW, and the uncertainties over the speed and severity
of systemic step-changes (tipping points), are simply far too numerous to list.
You’ll note the clever insertion of the word ‘today’. On its own, this one word
reveals the basis of the GWPF’s arguments, and the fundamental misunderstanding
of why global warming is a problem. It isn’t about today, never was. It’s about tomorrow, on which subject, the
GWPF is often relatively quiet.
Climate change alarmism is a belief system, and needs to be
evaluated as such.
Some types of extreme alarmism
seem to function in this way, but the kind of concerns reiterated over the past
20 years (50 years?) and more about where our actions and choices are leading
us are derived from scientific observation and practice and provide an evidence
base so large that ignoring it does, in the end, look like wilful ignorance
after all.
The Old Man’s final thoughts on
this, for now?
Global Warming dissent, being
less based on science, and more on personal prejudice, has many more characteristics
of a belief system than its converse, but this misses the point, as the GWPF
does. Forget your dislike of wind farms, Mr Lawson, and your faith in the
generation of wealth to bypass any ‘problems’ which might arise. Instead, ask
yourself how genuinely rational you are being.
Friday, 27 December 2013
What is it worth?
Dear Mr Mephistopheles,
My associate Prof. Rabett informs me that your organisation has been providing much-needed financial support to struggling incompetents willing to set aside their integrity, self-respect and the truth in exchange for slightly tarnished souls, at an appropriate price.
I can happily reassure you that I lost my integrity many years ago, when I discovered that unenlightened self-interest pays better than sticking to principles. I confess to have struggled with self-respect as an issue for some time, but since retaining any of this has proven to be less profitable than setting it aside, I'll concede that this will have to go by the board for a while, at least.
As for the truth, well, I can be confident, as a practised abuser of epistemology, that I can confidently present a front of uncertainty and credible doubt to people who are even stupider than me, and already disposed to believe pretty much only what suits their existing prejudices. I would note, however, that sustaining this in the face of overwhelming evidence and people who have maintained their integrity involves some effort and hoop-jumping, for which I expect to be suitably rewarded.
Though my track record in pyramid sales, Ponzi schemes and Real Estate has been somewhat inconsistent, I note that my qualifications are at least equal to those of the folks who have already signed up to your 'pact', so I hope my request meets with your approval.
I'd also note the added value of a proportion of the 100 million souls which will soon be up for grabs. I'll admit to a little sympathy for these poor folk, but they are after all poor, foreign and mostly young or near death anyway, so we'll barely notice the loss at home, and besides which by the time that matters I'll be long dead, hopefully having passed on whilst having my 'findings' manipulated by a glamorous 'research assistant' aboard my yacht in the Caribbean.
In terms of recompense, I suggest that a soul-trade value somewhere between that of a retired politician and an accident insurance lawyer seems a reasonable amount.
In anticipation of your approval, I am sir,
Yours truly,
R. B. Bot, PhI, MsT, BA(dishons).
My associate Prof. Rabett informs me that your organisation has been providing much-needed financial support to struggling incompetents willing to set aside their integrity, self-respect and the truth in exchange for slightly tarnished souls, at an appropriate price.
I can happily reassure you that I lost my integrity many years ago, when I discovered that unenlightened self-interest pays better than sticking to principles. I confess to have struggled with self-respect as an issue for some time, but since retaining any of this has proven to be less profitable than setting it aside, I'll concede that this will have to go by the board for a while, at least.
As for the truth, well, I can be confident, as a practised abuser of epistemology, that I can confidently present a front of uncertainty and credible doubt to people who are even stupider than me, and already disposed to believe pretty much only what suits their existing prejudices. I would note, however, that sustaining this in the face of overwhelming evidence and people who have maintained their integrity involves some effort and hoop-jumping, for which I expect to be suitably rewarded.
Though my track record in pyramid sales, Ponzi schemes and Real Estate has been somewhat inconsistent, I note that my qualifications are at least equal to those of the folks who have already signed up to your 'pact', so I hope my request meets with your approval.
I'd also note the added value of a proportion of the 100 million souls which will soon be up for grabs. I'll admit to a little sympathy for these poor folk, but they are after all poor, foreign and mostly young or near death anyway, so we'll barely notice the loss at home, and besides which by the time that matters I'll be long dead, hopefully having passed on whilst having my 'findings' manipulated by a glamorous 'research assistant' aboard my yacht in the Caribbean.
In terms of recompense, I suggest that a soul-trade value somewhere between that of a retired politician and an accident insurance lawyer seems a reasonable amount.
In anticipation of your approval, I am sir,
Yours truly,
R. B. Bot, PhI, MsT, BA(dishons).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)