A conservative friend sent me a YouTube, purporting (and probably is) from Australia, commenting on the current dire fire situation. I thought it would just be an interesting documentary, but it turns out to be a potent cocktail of facts and highly suspect assertions, which you can read as conspiracy theories. The video runs for 31 minutes, so you can watch it, or you can skip it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxHcBDp4J84 [link is now broken]
For me, the red flags are raised by these observations, chronologically ordered:
- Doppler radar is used to keep the storms away. This was pushed so quickly I almost missed it, but there it was beginning @ 5:36. Then there’s this radar image @ 5:55:
Impressive, no? Ignoring the issue of simple fakery, the problem, of course, is that if there’s any evidence of Doppler radar affecting the weather – pushing the clouds away, as this chap would have us believe – I can’t find it. Wikipedia doesn’t know about it[1]. I can’t even find skeptical commentary on the subject; you’d think Skeptical Inquirer would have checked into such a claim, and I’ve been a subscriber for decades. I’m no physicist, but it’s my suspicion that Doppler radar could have an effect on the weather if the amount of power pushing the signal out was so outrageous that it burned out the transmitting elements of the apparatus. And possibly the power plant backing it. - The end of Australia (@ 14:00) is nigh due to the politicians. Perhaps my weakest objection, this dude asserts that a series of decisions made by popularly elected politicians were all taken in order to destroy Australia as it’s currently known. My problem with this is two-fold: (1) Does anyone really think a vast collection[2] of elected politicians can coordinate such a conspiracy over the number of necessary years, (2) just to destroy the very thing that benefits them? Really? I’d grant the suggestion that politicians will make foolish decisions, especially if, like the American President Trump, they smell short-term gain and are quite self-centered or delusional, but to expect the politicians to cold-bloodedly destroy that which gives them value is just silly.
- Chemtrail conspiracy mongering (15:37). The dude doesn’t actually actually call it that, but he remarks that aluminium, barium, and strontium have been sprayed on the country. Upon looking up barium spraying, I discovered this article in The Guardian, entitled My month with chemtrails conspiracy theorists: … But to Tammi, a 54 year-old organic farmer, it’s a “chemtrail”: a toxic cocktail of aluminum, strontium and barium sprayed from planes in a plot to control the weather, the population and our food supply. Chemtrails have been researched and found to be jet exhaust and condensation. While I didn’t view this dude’s other videos that concentrate on that subject, I’m willing to guess he’s gulped down the chemtrail conspiracy pill – or is at least willing to use it to manipulate his more conspiracy minded audience members.
- His careful stirring of passions over reason (@16:45). He admits he’s no experts on forest fires, and yet he can’t help but use the chaos and fury of a wildfire to suggest that the forests have been salted, as it were, for a tremendous fire. That stirs emotional fury, the thought of someone planning to destroy the life on the continent through carefully planned fires. Is this rational? No, and it’s planned as a way to ensure the audience doesn’t start thinking for itself. He’s evoking the flight or fight reflex, and this strategy is often used by these sorts, as explained in The Persuaders, a book I recommend for those who want to understand how marketeers and dudes like the guy in this video try to manipulate audiences. A little later, around 19:30, he uses the term genocide to describe what is going on in Australia, another stir of the emotions.Why not consult with experts? Well, they might come up with inconvenient facts which would not support the tale he’s telling.
- Climate change denial (@20:54). In just a single comment, he shrugs it off. It doesn’t support his narrative, so he doesn’t consider it important; he’s focused on his conspiracy theory that Australians are under attack by their own politicians.
In general, this is a skillful mixture of facts and dubious assertion, and the stir-stick is a gentleman with a very fine voice and foreign manner – a problem Americans in general have is that a good accent can cover a host of sins. Brit Andrew Sullivan observed that he could push the most outrageous stuff in class at Harvard, and most of his fellow students would swallow it all because, he said, of his authoritative British accent.
The problem for an audience member who does a bit of research, though, is that the video completely loses its value because of his reliance on discredited and/or deeply implausible conspiracy theories. For example, he suggests the government isn’t nearly doing enough. Maybe, I don’t know. Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has certainly not impressed me with his mental acuity. But this dude doesn’t have any credibility, so I don’t know.
Similarly, his overview of MPs not being required to disclose whether they own water rights might be a good point. Australia is an arid continent, perhaps this is happening and is a serious matter. Maybe they are corrupt. If only I could take this dude seriously.
He’s entirely ruined any valid points by his inclusion of these conspiracy theories and his method of arguing. Ironically, he warns that some web sites have fallacious information or pictures; I’m not sure if he’s defending his territory by a bit of sleight of hand, or if he’s in earnest in his warning.
So, for the viewer who’s impressed by this video, be warned: it’s included conspiracy theories and employed communication strategies that render it quite untrustable. I rather enjoyed his delivery and manner, and I have to wonder if it’s rehearsed or comes naturally. It reminds me of Rush Limbaugh, although Limbaugh’s voice is warmer and more friendly.
But, in the end, that’s fluff: when you’re pushing sordid lies, your voice’s warm and friendly qualities are don’t matter. Anything this guy says has to be taken with a very large grain of salt.
1 Which is not to suggest Wikipedia is the end-all, but it’s certainly a good place to start.
