OU blog

Personal Blogs


Global warming

Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Aideen Devine, Friday, 20 Oct 2023, 10:27

Going back to the global warming/climate change debate, I've been trying to figure out what is really going on because I couldn't understand why this false science has become so pervasive in the media and across the internet with real scientists being subjected to some serious abuse for trying to talk 'common sense', as David Bellamy put it, when it is not proved or even close to being proved.  Why is this big lie being promoted with such vigour across the entire world and what is the purpose?

Just as an experiment, I tried to talk to a few 'Green' friends about the blog I had researched going over the science and asking them to check it out. This propaganda is entrenched! They refused to even consider it, blinded by their own arrogance. Also, I think, the fact that I'm female and they are male, had a bearing. Here in NI the old attitudes prevail even amongst those who consider themselves open-minded and liberal.

I've also been researching a lot into the Rothschilds, the Fed, the IMF/World Bank and how no matter who you vote for the Rothschilds are still in charge (a blog for another day). The powers that be are still pursuing their own agenda, creating wars as cover to gain control of the energy supplies, the oil and gas around Ukraine, Iraq and the rest of the world and, of course, the big prize, Iran.

I couldn't understand why they were still doing this while pushing the Co2 as a contributor to global-warming, across the media and the internet and call me paranoid, if you like, but I think I've got it!

I think the whole Co2/climate-change agenda is a set-up which will be used to discredit the entire green movement and anyone connected to it. When it suits their purpose, of course, the tide of opinion will be turned through the media, which they mostly control and no one will listen to the environmentalists again. If you don't believe this is possible, I would ask you to look at the Adam Curtis documentary, Century of the Self, to see just how much we are, and have been, manipulated. This will be the big pull the rug out from underneath them and shut them up forever and this will happen when they have locked down the energy supplies of coal, gas and oil for themselves.

Maybe I've been watching too many you tube documentaries but it's the only thing that makes sense to me.  Anyway, all we can do is wait and see and remember you read it here first!

Permalink Add your comment
Share post


New comment

Oh dear.

Me in a rare cheerful mood

New comment

Jammed into the middle of DD210 was a very short section on climate change.  A few line introduction on how it exists, it is proven, that it is hard to understand and that the biggest problem is convincing the people who refuse to believe.  That had me worried straight away.  This was followed by 24 graphs that imply they prove it is true.  That week's study then moved on to "How can we use psychology to convince people of this truth?"  Because, this was a psychology module, not environmental studies or anything like that.

It actually felt shoe-horned in, as if provided by an external body with instructions "You must include this stuff".  It had the warning signs: big unfamiliar words "Making sense of anthropogenic climate change" and "Welcome to the Anthropocene"; it included the subject in amongst geological statements as if it is established fact; and other methods normally only seen in leaflets from religious sects.  It felt like a case study in fallacies: faulty analogy, false dilemma, appealing to authority, argument from authority, appeal to consequences, argumentum ad baculum et al.

The bit that really got me was the list of 24 graphs.  (Or whatever the collective noun is for graphs.)  They were presented to mislead.  I've written about them already and presented my objections to the module team.  https://learn1.open.ac.uk/mod/oublog/viewpost.php?post=173668

Interestingly, it attracted responses from people objecting to my objecting to them, as if I was blaspheming.  It is fascinating how people can be mobilised to believe in something, to have faith in it, such that it is unacceptable to question it.  I suppose that is how support is generated for big, painful, change projects such as austerity or going to war but also gets used and abused to create support for autocrats and tyrants.  But it feels like appealing to the bogeyman: don't even think of criticising he perceived policies of the leadership or Bad Things will happen.

(This was in part how Hitler was successful, he did not need to give detailed orders, people made other people do what they thought was aligned with Hitler's values.  The same technique is used by people who laughingly say their moral guide is "What would Captain Picard do?", or, I suppose WWJD?  I digress.)

There was one response in support:

this part is unashamedly advocating, or warning of anthropocene, climate change.  And, taking an objective look, not giving much space to the sceptical view.  Which to me is part of the issue - the message can become so strident, people mobilise their defence mechanisms to block it out (! - I've learnt something).

there is an undertone of: look what bad things we humans are causing.  At least 15 of these graphs - use your own definition but roughly 3/4s - focus on ostensibly negative effects.  Which then becomes self-serving.  Why not add life-span? Infant mortality? i.e. stats and graphs that are positive?  Because that's not the message that is intended?

Don't get me wrong, I can see the climate change issue - but this is a very one-sided graphic and I understand why Simon might take issue.  And some of the graphs are questionable.

which got no response.

I've been firmly on the fence and on both sides of it regarding climate change for many years, courtesy of my big sister who cares about stuff before anyone else has heard of it.  I became most concerned when the politicians clambered on the band-wagon and made it a political issue.  At that point the 'science' became a club with which to beat the enemy and science gets the blame when statistics are abused by the devious, the self-serving and the liars to deceive the ignorant.

It is frightening that this is either the biggest problem facing the planet and we might all die, or the biggest distraction for the planet so we don't see what is going on, and cannot tell which it is because of the spin, the lies, the dogma and human-nature's incredible abilities for blind faith, cognitive dissonance and paranoia.
Me in a rare cheerful mood

The 24 graphs

Before being overwhelmed by these graphs, for each one, look at the axes and wonder what the effect is of not starting at zero, or using a log scale, or a negative scale? Why have the selected units been chosen and are they relevant? What does the graph actually measure and is it really telling us something about climate change or merely an arbitrary statistic? Does the timeline match the others?

But most of all, correlation does not mean causation.  Telephones?  Really?  And what is 0.03 of a great flood?

24 graphs used in DD210 to 'prove' climate change

If you want to see some more, do a Google image search for "pirate global temperature" and see the incredible correlation between piracy and global warming.  Just as valid as the stuff above.

Me in a rare cheerful mood

New comment

Oops, I did what the OU did and did not include any sources for the graphs!

DD210, Week 15: The wider environment, 3.1 Welcome to the Anthropocene
Figure 2: The ‘great acceleration’ showing the rapid growth of many anthropogenic factors since the 1950s

The actual source was here.  It seems that journal no longer exists.  It was Gaffney, O. and Pharand-Deschênes, F. (2012) ‘“State of the planet” film opens Rio summit’, The Anthropocene Journal [Online].

But I've done what the module team haven't and sourced the graphs.  They were selected and produced on purpose to give a very one-sided view of the world to produce a film to make a one-sided point.  The graphs were never meant to be used as evidence or data, they were devised to make an emotive point.  This is the film: https://anthropocenejournal.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/the-un-calls/

But here they are, presented in a university degree course as fact, on one of the most popular university modules in the UK, with the message "Now how do we, as psychologists, convince others of this truth?"

And thus misleading falsehoods become truth and dogma.

New comment

It's very easy to put up a graph but it doesn't, as you say Simon, prove anything.  The most disturbing aspect about all this is the 'tyranny of public opinion' on the subject and how pervasive the whole idea has become.  Real science has been ignored and shouted down.  If they can create a lie of this proportion and sell it to the world, then what other lies have we been fed and what else is going on?   I'm beginning to doubt Isis even exist, how would we know that is isn't all fabricated propaganda?  In 20 years, we'll probably read about how the CIA along with the Corporations and media made the whole thing up to destabilise the middle east and invade Iran.