![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
"Heads I win, tails you lose"
We have a consistent pattern here.
If a new report comes out, saying something that the government doesn't like, then the response is "Oh, but this is untested research" (like, e.g., the Stern Report), or "This is new, and we have to think about it before we can do anything," or "We could not have possibly known before this report came out."
If it turns out that the warnings go back, in essence unchanged, for years, then the response is "You think this is news? This is ancient! We've known about this forever! Go find some news to report you useless partisan hack!!"
Do you think that they know that the two responses are mutually contradictory? Their response to continual warnings of looming problems (I won't say 'disaster' because then![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
erudito and the Lavoisier group would accuse me of scare-mongering) is "This is new, and unproven!", and their response to revelations that the warnings have been pretty consistent for years is "that's boring, old news, of course we knew the whole time, what do you think we are, incompetent?" (Except when they go back a few more decades, and say "They gave different dire predictions thirty years ago, therefore they are wrong now!1! Ha, I've run rings 'round you logically!")
The thing is though, Mr Turnbull, that for those years that your department and your boss (you think he reports to his electorate? HA!) were fully cognisant of the potential for disaster, you were standing up in public, with your bare faces showing, shouting from the rooftops that nothing was wrong, everything was fine, and anyone who said otherwise was probably just a tree-hugging communist. Who eats babies.
Were you all full-of-shit lying opportunistic short-sighted two-faced bastards then, or are you now? Or is it, as is more likely, both?
If a new report comes out, saying something that the government doesn't like, then the response is "Oh, but this is untested research" (like, e.g., the Stern Report), or "This is new, and we have to think about it before we can do anything," or "We could not have possibly known before this report came out."
If it turns out that the warnings go back, in essence unchanged, for years, then the response is "You think this is news? This is ancient! We've known about this forever! Go find some news to report you useless partisan hack!!"
Do you think that they know that the two responses are mutually contradictory? Their response to continual warnings of looming problems (I won't say 'disaster' because then
erudito and the Lavoisier group would accuse me of scare-mongering) is "This is new, and unproven!", and their response to revelations that the warnings have been pretty consistent for years is "that's boring, old news, of course we knew the whole time, what do you think we are, incompetent?" (Except when they go back a few more decades, and say "They gave different dire predictions thirty years ago, therefore they are wrong now!1! Ha, I've run rings 'round you logically!")The thing is though, Mr Turnbull, that for those years that your department and your boss (you think he reports to his electorate? HA!) were fully cognisant of the potential for disaster, you were standing up in public, with your bare faces showing, shouting from the rooftops that nothing was wrong, everything was fine, and anyone who said otherwise was probably just a tree-hugging communist. Who eats babies.
Were you all full-of-shit lying opportunistic short-sighted two-faced bastards then, or are you now? Or is it, as is more likely, both?
no subject
At least, not for whatever the current equivalent of the post-KT Event mammals is going to be.
For the rest of us, I don't think Climate Change deniers are going to be well regarded in even 10 years time. I think many of them will be changing their names, having plastic surgery, and hiding out in Brazil... make that Argentina. It's farther from the equator.
no subject
Bah, politicians. Only thing you can do is wrap them up in so much process they can't screw anything up while the rest of the world gets on with life.
no subject
Besides, I'm not putting them into any 'doesn't learn from history' category: they have learned very well that no-one will ever press them on why one answer directly contradicts the last answer they gave. No-one who matters, anyway.
If anyone needs me, I'll just be over here, railing at the Gods and weeping in impotent fury at the uncaring clouds.
no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2007-03-31 07:23 am (UTC)(link)But there are biochemical contributions to that in any case.