It's all a conspiracy I tell you!

Conspiracy theories can certainly be silly, funny and ridiculous, but they can also be underhanded, hurtful, and dangerous.  

Even broken, mourning, families who have lost members to tragic events such as mass shootings, have been victimized by conspiracy theorists promoting lies and misinformation to increase the theorists' popularity and to enrich themselves.  They made unfounded statements (since disproven) accusing the victims and survivors of being actors in a grand plot to further some nefarious cause etc, etc.  A believer in "Pizzagate" made a cross country trip on an armed "rescue" mission to save children supposedly held captive in the basement of a restaurant in Washington DC.  Only to discover when he got there, that it was all a lie.  During his trip there, he made emotional, taped messages to his own children explaining his actions, why he needed to save the "imprisoned children" and how he hoped to see his family again.  There was a pizzarea at his destination.  It had no basement.  There were no imprisoned children, just people making and eating pizza.  The conspiracy theory had been widely publicized in the media.  Most people laughed it off.  The media did very little to counter the theory.  Most simply dismissed it, assuming reason would prevail.  

Conspiracy promoters have their own agendas.  Sometimes the agenda is to entertain but often it's to make fools of folks or to distract attention from the conspirator's own behavior or to increase their influence, hold on to power, or increase their wealth.

Below is a real text exchange I recently had with a friend, regarding a climate hoax conspiracy video that his cousin had sent him.  You can watch the entire video, but really only need to see the first four or five minutes to understand what it is about and where it's headed.

Friend:  My cousin in MT sent me this. Lengthy and haven't seen the whole thing but going to try to carve out some time. I always like to see how the other side thinks. Maybe you can poke a few holes in their logic.  (The video to which my friend is referring is called:  "Climate The Movie:  The Cold Truth"

Me:  I have not watched it all yet.  They are repeatedly using a strategy dubbed the "Straw man fallacy".  

History of the straw man fallacy:

One of the earliest references to the straw man argument dates to Martin Luther. In his 1520 book On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, he claimed that one of the church’s criticisms of him was that he argued against serving the Eucharist according to one serving practice, despite his never actually making that argument. He described this criticism as “they assert the very things they assail, or they set up a man of straw whom they may attack.”

It looks like an effective argument on the surface.  The other person might not even disagree with what they said or might end up arguing against something that does not pertain to the topic at hand.

A.  It starts off right away with it's first straw man.  B. Then there are many characterizations which are patently untrue. C.  It then quickly follows with the second major Straw Man.  This pattern probably runs for the entire 121 minutes.  Without someone there to pause it every ten or twenty seconds to refute or explain what is happening, it begins to sound logical.

They are pretending to be giving an argument against the proposal that replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy will mitigate climate change.

A. “ Big money is involved”...Yes it is.  But it is the same money that Exxon and others are afraid to lose.  Yet somehow it dirties the people making windmills but not fossil fuel companies?

B.  “It's a story about the bullying of anyone willing to speak up against the climate alarm.”   Yeah, that's not happening.  Those scientists whose work repeatedly does not hold up to peer review, eventually stop getting the attention they once had if they are unwilling to face facts.  It becomes easy to say, they are being punished or shunned, when they are just not getting attention anymore.  World wide government?  Authoritarian measures?  Career suicide?  And on and on.  

(Exxon, Enbridge etc have been gentle when dealing with communities?)

C.  “Researchers have claimed ‘It's settled science’".  No they haven't.  Every second of video based on that claim is a classic example of how a straw man works.  Yet climate scientists know a scientific statement can only be supported, never completely proven.  By repeatedly attacking this Straw Man, they sound like they understand science but that others do not.   

Here is a review regarding the first  man's book "Unsettled"

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/05/a-critical-review-of-steven-koonins-unsettled/

I downloaded the "Cranky Uncle" app the reviewer suggests.  It looks promising.  I may use it with others as a training tool.  So thanks for that.

Me:  This is exactly how Murdoch, Limbaugh, Jones and others made their massive amounts of the corrupting money that they then accused others of being corrupted by.  They report a few legit facts in every segment.  Things that no one disputes.  They avoid reporting stories that detract from their own political/economic leanings. Then with things that make them money (ie. they can gin up emotion with), they begin to report partial truths (just the bit that helps their upcoming argument).  For instance they might rail on the ineffectiveness of government meat inspectors, but leave out that Congress slashed the money for said inspections every year for the past eight years.  Next, they mis-characterize the opposing view and argue against that.  When they've got nothing, they simply attack the opponent's character.  When that doesn't work, they mock and ridicule them to dehumanize them.  It helps to sprinkle in some unsubstantiated, outlandish claims like, "they want to destroy America and your way of life".  Often, (especially a radio tactic), they will bounce from one crazy claim to another very quickly before the listener has enough time to formulate a logical counter explanation in his head.  Lastly, they repeat and repeat and repeat until it's sounding normal to the listener.

It's not surprising that folks who surround themselves in that echoing cocoon, end up with a very distorted view of reality.  One that serves entertainment news and some big industries.

Friend:  Have never heard of the straw man tactic. That's interesting. Especially having been raised in the Lutheran Church where ML was highly revered. Appreciate the breakdown of some of the basic tenants from the film. I found myself shaking my head throughout most of it. The guy who said we need more CO2 in the air, not less, made me want to puke. Sometimes I really think maybe it is better if we do nothing so the earth can be rid of all humans and life can spring up again without our destructive species.

Me:  Don't give up hope.  Remember the analysis I sent you where they said that electrification is inevitable and will be more rapid than almost everyone is predicting.  I certainly understand your climate doomer feelings.  We need to be able to tell youngsters we meet that we personally did everything we could do.  Also for things to get so bad that humans go extinct, the earth will pretty much have to become a lifeless rock.

Friend: Yes. The electrification video was encouraging. I should send her that too.

Friend:  Did find this short rebuttal to Durkin s film that sums up who is behind its production and message.  No surprise really.

Climate The Movie "the cold truth" debunked:

Me:  Wow.  I'm curious as to how your cousin will respond when you send her this.

Friend:  She already has. She really didn't refute it. Just said how the climate people are all liars and people like Al Gore are just in it to get rich. 

Me:  I kinda thought that's what you would hear.  That's her echo chamber talking.

Friend:  Am trying to be diplomatic.

Both of us typing at the same time, resulting in our texts crossing.

Me:  That's very nice of you.  I'm afraid she might be too far gone.  The only approach that might speak to her at this point is that you should not have to pay money to a giant power company that enjoys a government sanctioned monopoly (each has its own territory within the state).  Instead, you and any of your neighbors should have the liberty to generate your own, cheap, local energy rather than being forced to buy from a company that takes energy dollars out of your community.

Friend:  The environmental movement really needs to work on explaining to sceptics how much better and easier their lives will be with electrification. No longer having to buy fuel, generating their own power, driving vehicles with a third fewer components to break down, etc.

Me:  Funny how we both basically just wrote the same thing.

Friend:  Great minds think alike.

Me:  Download this app and let me know what you think.  It's free.  Have not seen any ads yet.

Friend:  Saw this on a site when I was researching Martin Durkin. Was wondering what it was about.  Looks like some type of game.

Me:  Yeah sort of.  Tell me what you think.

www.crankyuncle.com