The Great Swindle

The Great swindle

The video "The Great Swindle" was created to prove that ´Global Warming´ is a swindle but are they  using the right methods to evaluate the theories? The creators of the "The Great Swindle" have created a belief that it was created by high placed people, an economic conspiracy. They are using what they believe in and tries to find evidence to support their statements, this is called confirmation bias. In this essay I will evaluate the eight parts of the video and explain how they used confirmation bias and why the video is invalid.

In the first part of the video sequels they discuss areas such as CO2 n relation to global warming and the reason behind the idea of why anyone would create a conspiracy like this. The creators conspire again around the theroy of confirmation bias, having a belief and finding evidence to support it. The "scientists" in the documentary have an idea that the global warming is simply not human caused. They  take the example of CO2 and say it has been around for thousands of years and has no relation to the temperature. They took data from global warming evidence and dragged it out to fit their statement. Because the CO2 has been higher before does not mean there is not a global warming occuring. They also use the economy as an example of a reason to create this. They are trying to persuade people to understand why someone would do this and enable them to enchance their theory in the eyes of the audience.

The second video is relying the past experiences from long back to a closer past and have found evidence to support their theory. The evidence is mostly emotional and very basic and the reasoning behind it is not strong enough. They are pointing out that because in the past nothing happend they say that nothing will happend today. Again they found evidence to support their argument and to emotionally make conclusions out of pictures are simply nonscientific. Circumstances change all the time and they do not back it up with solid theory. "The ice fairs was a lot of fun for the people in the little ice age" is not a scientific argument, they are persuading people into believing that people enjoyed climate change before so why not today? They are using confirmation bias to support their own believes and the evidence is very narrow is each field. They also mention the relation between the industrialization and the temperature increase. When the industrialization began CO2 would increase but the temperature decreased when the rate of production of cars and etc was the highest. The scientific reasoning behind the arguments are shallow, it is based on emotions and unevaluated data. They still use confirmation bias and a very thin string of relations. They weigh the importance of their argument and the global warming.

The third video is disproving the statement that CO2 is a major cause of global warming. They crank down on the global warming theories and interpret them differently. They base their belief on evidence found through their experiments and theories. They do not look at the whole picture and only evaluates the part that concerns them.  They say that if CO2 is the reason behind global climate change, why has the temperature on the surface increased more than the temperature in the troposhpere. They make the statement that the theory of global warming does not relate and that the evidence falsefies their statement. A very shallow conclusion and there is no data evaluation, their reason is very basic and it does not show any sign of expertise. The "scientists" are using confirmation bias by finding evidence, not evaluating data properly and making assumptions based on the evidence. They are being cnfirmation bias by looking for evidence to support their belief, again. As in every part so far they try to win the audience by praising CO2, "every living creature emits CO2, it is not pollution, it is nature". They then look at the ratio of CO2 emission and say that industry only emits a small amount of CO2. They say it is insignifigant but shows no real calculations. How can we trust them if they do not show us that they are experts?

In the fourth video they "evaluate" the relation between the sun and the temperature and "proves" the irrelevant relation between CO2 and temperature. There are a lot of questions to ask about their arguments and it only proves that their reasoning is very hollow. They make the conclusion by a graph that CO2 and temperature moves differently and that means that they are not related. They make the conclusion that sun and temperature are directly proportional and therefore the CO2 and temperature relation i irrelevant. The sun obviously is the source of temperature and will always have a relation with temperature but the small deviation in the relation could be a result of CO2. They do not elaborate on the areas and briefly explain it creating a very basic understanding of the issues. They are like always looking for evidence to support their answers and they cross out the things with irrelevent theories.

In the fifth video it is discussed how Global warming is related to politics and environmentalists. The environmentalists are seen as strong advocated who want to go back to the medieval age and live primitively without CO2. They say that if they are against CO2 they are against industrialization and then they are against economical growth. They are weighing the importance of the CO2 in todays society. They also mention that they are against cars, development, growth and the US.The politicians are seen as greedy and that they created an area of issue to raise money and if this were to collapse it would result in great loss in jobs. The right winged capitalist Margaret Wente created an alliance with the left environmentalists in a campaign for global warming. Environmentalists to save the world and the politicians for fundings. They are trying to prove that those who believe in global warming are either insane or greedy in a sense. They are portraying the global warming group in a negative picture to persuade their audience.

The sixth video is about a new branch of journalism and the program models used to calculate future temperature. They convey the message that journalists are going to the extreme in order to keep their jobs and that the program models cannot really be trusted. They say that the modeling of the future can be way off and it is only as good as its assumptions. They do not mention the whole picture, what is a good assumption and how would they rely on it. It is simple and straight forward. They also blame the environmentalist journalists for being bias. They base their articles on small issues and make them radical, like any other journalist. Journalists also "blame" nature catastrophes on global warming. Environmental journalists are not different from other journalists and I do not need to be an expert to say that. Journalists want people to read it and go to extreme lengths to catch their audiences eyes. Again portraying the environmentalists in a negative frame.

After all the videos I have seen it is quite easy to make a conclusion. The creators and the context of this video are not reliable. The "scientists" are using confirmation bias in almost every argument and have failed to mention important factors. They make quick conclusions by using the data found for global warming and then found "evidence" that looks the same and said they are correlated. They say that global warming's evidence is irrelevant just because their evidence is more a like the other evidence. The Great swindle is itself the Great lie.

Notes from the nature of science video

Science is he best way to determine your decisions since it can foretell future events.Scientifically thinking and critical thinking, same thingConfirmation biast Instead of starting with beliefs you start with evidenceIf you are not aware of your bias, it's ok because it can be dangerousClimate change: What are the facts?It becomes less and less obvious as you go.The more you look into a fact the more complicated it becomesHow are we to decide what's a fact and what's notEvidence needs to interpetrated Duck you've never seen before, Interpreting take skillWhos interpretation are you going to trutStick with the professionalsHow close did you gt to the true valueyou were the one to be wrongUnconscious assumption in which case lead you from the evidence. Not because your dumb just because you didn't have the training.Problem arouses when we don't realize we do itFilling in gaps because of past xperienceThe idea of knowing everything as I am now. Lost credibility when he admitted he was wrongNever admit they are wrong50/50 never wrong and other half sometimes wrongAdmit when the are wrongWould you prefer They out their work out their to reduce uncertainties Peer reviewed by oth people and it will be easier to trust Science never get there, never clam to know the truth