27th November 2009, 05:56 PM
Sadly, I think that we are in agreement about most of this topic and that you have mistaken my post for an attack on the 'Green movement'(your phrase from an earlier post). This is not the case and I agree wholeheartedly about the importance of the issue of climate change and the venality of big business. At no time in my post did I make the points that you seem to be refuting.
I was in fact, pointing out that while the Green lobby may have less motive to distort facts/lie about the issue, this does not mean that there is no motivation for such activities. Arguably, it could be said that as their avowed intent is the noble goal of saving the planet from catastrophe/environmental destruction, they might have more of a motive to manipulate facts where it suits their purposes (given the importance of the cause), than the oil companies do (especially given their lack of resources compared to the oil companies, which you rightly point out). I used academic salaries/grants etc as potential reasons for such behaviour by way of example.
Why is it insulting to suggest that personal gain (financial or in the fulfilment of an ethos/ideology) may serve as a motivation for lying/distorting the truth? At no point did I say that anyone in the Green movement had done so, merely that a motive for such obfuscation does exist. My point was that gain does not have to be of the level of profit made by big business for people to be motivated by it.
I appreciate that you may well not believe how little it takes for people to betray their personal values or a good cause but sadly it is true. During my 20 year working life I have frequently encountered colleagues who were prepared to lie to advance or save their jobs,break the law, pass blame on to others, and generally act in a venal fashion, often for comparatively little reward.
Within archaeology I have frequently worked for supervisors who ignored health and safety issues because they were worried about management reactions and their job security (personally there is no job which pays so well that it would make me risk my fellow-workers health rather than upset the management but...). Others have favoured their friends or people that they fancy over more skilled/dedicated employees. Several have driven staff to work while still under the effects of alcohol. Others have stood aside when they should have stood up for their workers and protested about conditions/treatment, just so as to keep their job. Few of them have been 'bad people', they are simply people whose desire to retain their jobs (personal gain) over-rode their professed beliefs.
I would find it pathetic if it weren't so distressing to see people sell themselves for a job which pays less thsan 20kpa. I may be an immoral swine but I'll be damned before I sell myself so cheaply.
Given these experiences then, I do not find the notion that people within the Green movement (or indeed in any position) might lie/distort the truth in order to preserve their jobs or help advance their cause, to be unreasonable. I repeat however that I did not say that they do; I merely pointed out that the fact that the Green movement may have less of a motive to dissemble/distort facts than the oil companies does not mean that they are not capable of doing so, and that are motives for them to do so.
In reference to my friends who work for green charities. Yes, i have told them of this opinion and they did not seem to find it insulting. Nor should they. All I am stating is that personal gain often leads people to lie, cheat, betray their beliefs, and into all manner of unpleasantries, and that members of the green movement can by no means be assumed to be exceptions to this rule purely because of their involvement in a good cause. This is hardly an unreasonable or offensive notion and should not be treated as such. To say otherwise is like saying that no chuchgoer will ever commit a crime or tell a lie, because they go to church, a non-sequitur of an argument if ever there was one.
The issue of climate change and humankinds effect on its living environment is obviously a relevant one. It is sufficiently important that no distortion of the facts in this case can be acceptable, as even one misrepresentation of the facts may lead to people who know little about the issue deciding that much of what the green movement says is rubbish or a lie.
In short I did not denigrate the green movement but merely stated that it, like the rest of humanity, is capable of inappropriate behaviour in the service of a cause or personal gain.
I was in fact, pointing out that while the Green lobby may have less motive to distort facts/lie about the issue, this does not mean that there is no motivation for such activities. Arguably, it could be said that as their avowed intent is the noble goal of saving the planet from catastrophe/environmental destruction, they might have more of a motive to manipulate facts where it suits their purposes (given the importance of the cause), than the oil companies do (especially given their lack of resources compared to the oil companies, which you rightly point out). I used academic salaries/grants etc as potential reasons for such behaviour by way of example.
Why is it insulting to suggest that personal gain (financial or in the fulfilment of an ethos/ideology) may serve as a motivation for lying/distorting the truth? At no point did I say that anyone in the Green movement had done so, merely that a motive for such obfuscation does exist. My point was that gain does not have to be of the level of profit made by big business for people to be motivated by it.
I appreciate that you may well not believe how little it takes for people to betray their personal values or a good cause but sadly it is true. During my 20 year working life I have frequently encountered colleagues who were prepared to lie to advance or save their jobs,break the law, pass blame on to others, and generally act in a venal fashion, often for comparatively little reward.
Within archaeology I have frequently worked for supervisors who ignored health and safety issues because they were worried about management reactions and their job security (personally there is no job which pays so well that it would make me risk my fellow-workers health rather than upset the management but...). Others have favoured their friends or people that they fancy over more skilled/dedicated employees. Several have driven staff to work while still under the effects of alcohol. Others have stood aside when they should have stood up for their workers and protested about conditions/treatment, just so as to keep their job. Few of them have been 'bad people', they are simply people whose desire to retain their jobs (personal gain) over-rode their professed beliefs.
I would find it pathetic if it weren't so distressing to see people sell themselves for a job which pays less thsan 20kpa. I may be an immoral swine but I'll be damned before I sell myself so cheaply.
Given these experiences then, I do not find the notion that people within the Green movement (or indeed in any position) might lie/distort the truth in order to preserve their jobs or help advance their cause, to be unreasonable. I repeat however that I did not say that they do; I merely pointed out that the fact that the Green movement may have less of a motive to dissemble/distort facts than the oil companies does not mean that they are not capable of doing so, and that are motives for them to do so.
In reference to my friends who work for green charities. Yes, i have told them of this opinion and they did not seem to find it insulting. Nor should they. All I am stating is that personal gain often leads people to lie, cheat, betray their beliefs, and into all manner of unpleasantries, and that members of the green movement can by no means be assumed to be exceptions to this rule purely because of their involvement in a good cause. This is hardly an unreasonable or offensive notion and should not be treated as such. To say otherwise is like saying that no chuchgoer will ever commit a crime or tell a lie, because they go to church, a non-sequitur of an argument if ever there was one.
The issue of climate change and humankinds effect on its living environment is obviously a relevant one. It is sufficiently important that no distortion of the facts in this case can be acceptable, as even one misrepresentation of the facts may lead to people who know little about the issue deciding that much of what the green movement says is rubbish or a lie.
In short I did not denigrate the green movement but merely stated that it, like the rest of humanity, is capable of inappropriate behaviour in the service of a cause or personal gain.