Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 28 replies
  • Subscribers 9 subscribers
  • Views 2110 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

1984

Roger B
I have recently finished rereading George Orwell’s 1984 (actually the compendium of all his novels) and was struck by the similarity to the AGW movement(s). 


The basis of 1984  is that the Elite (Inner Party) want absolute and permanent power. If the life of the masses (Prols) is too easy they are hard to control so they are kept in a state of semi poverty by a continuous war which uses up the free resources.


The importance of the war is supported by the Propaganda Machine (Ministry of Truth) that continuously changes history to match the requirements of the Inner Party and to suppress free thought. Those who have any free thought or who challenge the system are taken away by the Thought Police. The need for and support of the war are driven by daily two minute hate sessions and by longer hate weeks. The organisation is run by the Outer Party who get certain limited privileges but are constantly monitored and brainwashed by their ‘Telescreens’.


Looking at today people are already mostly voluntarily locked to their ‘Telescreens’ (Smartphones, Tablets, TVs, etc.) and get most of their information from the Media, especially social media like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, etc. Very few people ever look at what is behind this information and are ripe for being told that Climate Change, AGW, etc. is our war. Rather than just two minute hate sessions we are bombarded with calls to war, most stuff on the BBC science section, David Attenborough’s Climate Change: the Facts, Hottest Day Evaahh, reported Increases in natural disasters, Corbyn’s Climate Emergency, etc. Extinction Rebellion bought the Hate Week around the world. 


The Elite will keep doing just what they want to, buying beach villas, flying round in private jets, living in mansions whilst trying to create energy poverty for the masses to keep them under control. The dash for renewables has significantly increased energy costs wherever it has been implemented, UK, Germany, Australia, etc. The money all goes those who already have money and can afford to pay up front for solar panels, wind turbines, EVs, etc. and get the various government subsidies. The ‘Prols’ just get higher bills.


How many people just believe the Ministry of Truth? How many actually look and see the number of papers and articles that have to be withdrawn or corrected? Dissent is suppressed as far as possible with cries of ‘Denier’ and personal abuse. Scientists are threatened with loss of funding or sacking (the Peter Ridd case in Australia is a ray of hope).


Does anyone else see it like this? Before I am completely flamed I fully support the reduction in the use of our finite resources, reduction of pollution and reduction of our impact on the planet. I don’t think that targeting CO2 is the correct way to achieve these goals.


Best regards


Roger

  • 0
    I can't say I look at the number of papers withdrawn or corrected, but I certainly don't just accept so called facts presented, particularly when sources are not properly cited.

    Even properly presented papers can give a skewed picture of the situation. It would be interesting to have a paper looking at the correlation between global temperatures and number of installed wind turbines, as I think it might be possible to "prove" that global warming is driven by wind power......

    I am with you in support on the reduction in the use of our finite resources, but I am open minded about targeting CO2.

    EDIT:  I ought to add that I gave up with 1984 at about page 25, but I thought Animal Farm was superb.

  • 0
    Ohhhhh Roger..... ?


    You're talking about one of my favourite subjects... How media has overtaken religion as being a way to control the masses and the beliefs of the masses.


    I don't read newspapers and haven't for many years and I rarely watch the news unless there's something very important happening (such as the whole Brexit fiasco). I was taught at a very early age to 'think for myself' and not to believe anything someone says or what I've read unless I've fact-checked it first or gathered enough hard evidence (and opposing views) to form my own opinion. Irritates the hell out of some of my friends and colleagues though... ?


    In my research I do for my role at the IET I remember reading an article a few years ago on how Facebook's newsfeed algorithm could reinforce strong (and sometimes dangerous) opinions by only showing users news stories and content etc that matches their currently held opinions. Therefore a user was not being subjected to a differing point of view and in turn reinforcing their opinion that their view is the right one i.e. surrounding yourself with people and content from people of the same views.  This was a number of years ago now though and thankfully I believe that Facebook took steps to combat that.


    There's also an interesting piece about 'Sock puppetry' in online conversations used as a way of making people believe that a view or opinion has more support than it really does. Again I've seen this quite a lot online, especially on Facebook and Twitter... 


    It's a fascinating subject... ?


  • 0
    I'm sure there is a lot of manipulation and propoganda generated by people in power. WW2 has  appropriate examples of how news about disasters and losses overseas were not reported or controlled so that ordinary people would not loose heart.

    It doesn't take vast amounts of intelligence to perceive that there are conspiracies today, the key to their success is not to tell anybody of their existance so as to keep everybody guessing. and if there is compelling evidence to their existence is to lie through ones teeth challenging interested parties to invest the public purse in developing the proof and appropriate punishment.


    Legh
  • 0


    I saw this report on the potential effects of a Swiss nuclear disaster on a Swiss web site:
    https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/worst-case-scenarios_what-a-swiss-nuclear-disaster-could-do-to-europe/44977606

    So as ever I looked for the source document and found this:

    77782bea238db7404ee02e140e088179-huge-swiss-nuclear-accident-report.jpg

    Why base an article on an unreleased document (especially one commisioned by an anti nuclear organisation) unless you have a hidden agenda? Big Brother is everywhere.


    Best regards


    Roger

  • 0
    I have not read 1984 though I have seen cinema and video films based on it and associated adaptions on the totalitarian theme. I can fully sympathize with Roger's observations - and yes we do indeed need to check the sources of advice given in the media. e.g. Statins good vs bad, red wine good vs bad, eggs good vs bad etc.

    As a retired professional engineer, I automatically apply what used to be called 'the scientific method' to the examination of any new technology ideas presented as revolutionary, seeking always to understand, and if necessary to challenge the basis of any claims made. It might be called the routine application of a healthy evidence based scepticism.

    From my own observations, we urgently need more politicians and professional advisers with STEM based qualifications, if we are to avoid legislative and taxation based fiascos such as the wholesale promotion and then 20 to 30 years later the total demonisation of Diesel engines. At the moment powerful corporate lobby groups can all too easily 'persuade' the government of the day to introduce life changing legislation - to powerfully direct and control our life choices. The resultant outcomes clearly benefit the short term financial objectives of the commercial and corporate world but may turn out to be significantly less beneficial to the general population than promised. Often the scientific evidence is well developed out the outset of the lobbying but only selectively supportive evidence is used in the lobbyists promotional material. With the ever growing power of social media and of so called 'social influencers' we seem to be living in a 'knee jerk' society. Our children are encouraged to 'know and demand their rights' but all too rarely are the children and/or their similarly 'groomed' parents required to accept any responsibility for their sometimes extremely damaging and anti-social behaviour, actions and opinions. I could go on but trust that IET Members will continue to develop Roger's excellent presentation on this theme.
  • 0
    Did anyone else read this E&T article and consider that it must have come straight from the Ministry of Truth:
    https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2019/07/conspiracy-theorists-hijack-engineering-terms-to-spread-deceit-on-youtube/

    People have been 'contradicting the scientific consensus'!!! What happened to freedom of speech? 


    Best regards


    Roger


  • 0
    The problem with "freedom of speech" is that it can become a right to lie to people for personal gain.


    Suppose I sell chemical X.  It's really useful, but unfortunately, it turns out to be toxic.  People start noticing.  Researchers look into the chemical and discover a high death rate amongst its users.  They start publishing papers.  My sales go down, and there's talk of banning X.


    So I respond by paying people to say that there is no evidence that X is harmful.  For every paper that says it's dangerous, I pay someone to write one that says it's not.  The public are confused and think that the scientists can't make up their minds.  The regulators dither.  I get to keep selling my toxic chemical.


    The tobacco industry had that down to a fine art.  The sugar industry is doing a good job of it too.  But the asbestos industry left it too late for it to work.
  • 0
    Very quickly because I'm supposed to be at work - there seems to be two different issues being conflated here. The majority of the media, and the majority of wealthy who are able to employ very effective PR agencies, benefit hugely from the free market so it is strongly in their interest to promote one particular world view (which individuals may or may not agree with - and it's a hugely complicated issue). But that's completely separate from the scientific consensus on climate change and its relationship to CO2.


    If the "elite" wanted to suggest that a) climate change is real and b) it was linked to CO2 we'd be living in a very different world...but since, on the whole, controlling CO2 emissions goes against free market principles it is very heavily played down (except where individual companies can spin it to their benefit). So in fact it's those who aren't in the "elite" - climate academics and the general public - who are pushing for change. (Anyone who thinks climate academics are in the elite has clearly never met one!! One of the most thankless jobs there is - no-one likes bad news.)


    Thanks,


    Andy
  • 0
    And then you see stories like this one: Flat Earth Rising  and you despair...


    I'm a big fan of Terry Pratchett's Discworld books but not for one second do I believe the earth is flat... ?
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    That's Umercans for you, Lisa - all a bit odd in my experience


    If you want to see how easy it is, then take a look at the di-hydrogen monoxide parody  - priceless


    Regards


    OMS


Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines