I should have paid more attention during school / college. Well, luckily I did, more so at college and later on. I love that meme where the chaps dying breath is "I got through my whole life without using Algebra!" Or did you?
But here's the thing, go to say, Facebook or X or your <insert favourite social media or MSM here> and start to look at what they are actually showing you and dissect the data you are given.
Today, I saw a map of the UK and on it were coloured dots of all the windfarms, solar panels and so on. It was a pretty messy thing and the dots overlapped and blotted out large areas. No one questioned the blindingly obvious which is how large are these dots compared to the terrain location. A few counties were obliterated in dots so they must have covered around 4 or 5 miles per dot - it was nothing other than propaganda and whilst whoever (well meaning or not) used it to demonstrate a point it actually made people angry and upset which is what it was meant to do but it bore no relationship to reality. There are no windmills here and whilst there are a few solar panel fields, they are few and far between but it looks like there are hundreds.
Another one to look at is charts and graphs. In recent news on Ukraine and the USA and EU funding of that war there are some graphs going around that they show demonstrate that the US isn't giving that much compared to the EU and UK. The figures don't add up and the argument isn't how much, we know it is substantial and in the multiple billions, it's why a US citizen who doesn't even know where the Ukraine is is paying their tax dollars for it. Hilariously people say that it is to prevent Russia invading the US? Really?
So graphs and diagrams are simple ways to show things that fool the viewer or reader. I like the use of Logarithmic scales on graphs - that really looks scary or my all time favourite is skewing the X and Y axis so that the point you are making shows up large. The other trick is to only show the period that demonstrates your headline and so missing out a whole dataset is prevalent in climate change charts as it shows huge rises in temperature (say) but only compares it to recent not great historical data. The reason? If they did it would not support their narrative.
I had so many people over my working life produce data and tables that when properly produced and delivered with all the data meant that they could be analysed, understood and a decision made on what you were presented with. That's the point, I had to make decisions based on this. My job was to challenge and check the data, assess it and then take appropriate actions.
If the data is false or made up (God preserve me from assumptions - to assume makes an Ass out of U and Me) the whole thing is useless and serves no purpose whatsoever apart from, possibly, someone trying to pull the wool over my eyes. Lying or misdirection etc.
These things should be delivered as accurate and impartial. These days, you can fact check pretty much anything if you take the time do some research and review what's presented to you with an inquisitive and challenging manner. Start to ask why the chart or data is there in the first place? Is it real information, is it backing up a position or is it plain propaganda?
Simple things are to look at Electric Vehicle sales. Apparently they are taking off and doing well? To check this, go and look at how the manufacturers are performing? Note the numbers of closures, lay offs and the difficulties they have, look at their financial reports. Go look at the Auto magazines and go past the hype, look at the massive discounts and at the registrations and mileage of the new vehicles. Then ask why there is no real second hand market for them and you'll start to see a very different picture. Once again. politicians have got involved in setting a market's targets and it's not what we, the buyers, want. They've imposed all sorts of silly tariffs onto the manufacturers and additionally made cars un affordable in the process so the market is collapsing. The companies are collapsing and yet to read what they are saying, see the adverts and the like, you'd think we all drive electric vehicles.
Take climate and warmest year eva! Records exist that show that the 1930s were much warmer than today as was the Medieval warm period and the Roman warm period but you never see those on a graph because it will skew the narrative they are pressing ahead with. Any graph that went back will also show that there's been no catastrophic warming at all. Compared to recent history (geological) we are still in an ice age, the poles haven't melted and for many periods there were no ice poles at all, look it up and check the data.
Go back to the basics. Who makes money from all of these things? Who benefits? Who employs the "experts" and does their continued employment rely on continuing the narrative? Why do research if it leads to you losing your job?