from: Bloodstone43956@i-mail.irs
to: Raventrap39996@i-mail.irs
date: 7518.30726
My Dear Raventrap ~
I found it amusing to learn your client was easily fooled into believing that because he didn’t understand the science behind climate change, no one could, and therefore he concluded it was not happening. Don’t congratulate yourself too soon, though. The Corporation has already been quite successful in conditioning the little fruit bats to believe they shouldn’t trust scientists; I would have been surprised if you couldn’t use Cicero’s words against him. Just keep reminding your client the data are “confusing and contradictory” and be sure to amplify any small disagreement about the details to sound like a full-scale lack of scientific consensus, and your client will edge ever closer to us.
Another cool ~ or is it warm? ~ trick is to make sure your client is surrounded by others who attack climate scientists and their spokesmen on a personal level. Merely demeaning the messenger is enough to get many humans to disregard the message. Again, this shouldn’t be too hard to do, since we have recently assigned a surge of tempters to the media. Their job is to facilitate four things. 1) The general distortion, misstatement, and discrediting of the facts. 2) The interpretation of small local events as representative of the Earth as a whole. 3) The assumption that the opinions of pundits and politicians are somehow equivalent to those of scientists and researchers. 4) The impression that the science of climate change is “in dispute.”
If these four building blocks are securely in place, our clients will be in no position to comprehend facts, models, or consensus, and consequently they will be stuck with the question, “Who do I trust?” If we can label the strongest scientific authorities untrustworthy, corrupt, or “elitist,” while solidifying the position of pundits and politicians who only sound authoritative, the battle is half-won. Earth’s climates will, most likely and almost literally, go to Hell, millions will suffer, and the fallout will be fulfilling for The Corporation.
A word of caution on “consensus” and “models.” We know damned well scientific consensus is not the same as consensus in day-to-day experience. It’s not as if scientists sit around trying to achieve agreement in the same way a committee in the workplace may try to reach consensus about a proposed policy ~ as disgusting as that sounds ~ members may concede personal preferences for the good of the enterprise ~ for Hell’s sake! ~ and “agree to disagree” for the sake of moving forward. As you know, this is not desirable to us under any circumstances. On the other hand, scientific consensus is reached when the preponderance of peer-reviewed research points in the same direction. If an overwhelming majority of scientific papers arrive at essentially the same conclusion, there is scientific consensus. Your job, Raventrap, is to make sure your clients maintain utmost confusion about this concept.
Similarly, models may or may not perfectly align with each other or with nature, for that matter. As a presumptuous engineer once stated, “All models are wrong, but some are useful.” The purpose of a scientific model is to demonstrate how a phenomenon works in order to better predict results, as accurately as possible to be sure, yet models having many variables are notoriously difficult to get right. Various scientific models can be useful, even if they are not 100% accurate, as long as they generally agree and point towards similar conclusions. The point is, if you can intensify disagreements about modelling techniques or relatively small divergences in modelling results, you can easily cast your clients’ mini-minds into confusion. We can’t have them actually understanding science, can we?
Even if climate change takes longer than expected, the skirmishes along the way can offer great rewards. The irony is while the little marmosets are arguing over whether or not change is happening, what or who caused it, and what to do about it, the change will continue unchecked, and possibly only after it has gone too far will the fools realize it. In the meantime, the bickering, backbiting, and bloviating we have stirred up will produce a major yield for Our Executive. And, my annual bonus package could be engorging indeed!
Even if some of our clients begin to understand action probably needs to be taken, it’s up to us to see to it they wait for someone else to take it. Or better yet, that they try to coerce others into taking action while they do nothing. The hypocrisy is indescribably delicious. Rather than let them seek ways to conserve resources or slow the change themselves, just suggest it’s not their responsibility. We can also plant the notion that difficult solutions must take place somewhere else ~ but “not in my backyard!”
What makes all of the above possible is the work of our Risk Analysis Management Team (RAM Team). Since many humans indeed don’t understand math or science, they also have a difficult time analyzing risk. The RAM Team has seen to it they can’t see there are basically four things to consider.
- If action is taken and climate change is real, tragedy could be averted ~ there would be much for humans to gain.
- If no action is taken and climate change is a hoax ~ there would be no loss, unless the conservation of natural resources is considered important ~ in which case, there would be a net loss.
- If action is taken and climate change is a hoax, a lot of money could be “wasted,” unless improvement of energy efficiency and the environment are not considered a waste ~ in which case there could be something to gain.
- If no action is taken and climate change is real, the Earth could descend into chaos and a lot of humans would suffer and die ~ there would be a great deal for humans to lose ~ but much for us to gain!
By the rules of logic, it’s clear to us because so much is at risk, immediate action should be taken to offset the effects of climate change at very least. However, it’s our job to prevent our clients from analyzing risk in this way ~ hence the name Risk Analysis Management. The RAM Team is to make sure these kinds of decisions are made based on emotions and self-interest, not the best interests of all concerned. Our Competitor would have humans weigh the risks and benefits, putting aside questions of personal gain, considering the old maxim to “err on the side of caution.” Our Executive makes it a habit to “throw caution to the wind,” and wants our clients to do so as well.
Again, everything I’ve written is based on the same basic principle: “the self is all that matters.” Those who oppose action will be bolstered by your assertion that it will cost too much, or someone they don’t like will make money from it, or they won’t see much direct benefit for themselves. Meanwhile, you can discourage those who want to take action by reminding them they can’t do much to help since the problem is way too big, or it has already gone way too far. The results are the same. The Earth will likely become hotter and wetter and many humans will suffer and die. Conflicts over resources will likely intensify into open hostilities and warfare. In short, millions will ultimately act in their own self-interest and as a result many tortured contracts will become ours.
Your Devoted Cousin,
Bloodstone
MurrayWorks 