In part two, we will touch on why we should not be simply accepting the main stream media, or “scientists” views without study.
Welcome to Deuxième partie….. (That’s French for “Two”) – Or “Part Deux” if you’re an “Airplane fan”.
In any case…..
Do you BELIEVE the media? Why do you believe the media? Why SHOULD you believe the media?
Let’s look at the words “belief”. What does it mean to us.
Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty. In other words, belief is when someone thinks something is reality, true, when they have no absolute verified foundation for their certainty of the truth or realness of something. Another way of defining belief is, it is a mental representation of an attitude positively orientated towards the likelihood of something being true. In the context of Ancient Greek thought, two related concepts were identified with regards to the concept of belief: pistis and doxa. Simplified, we may say that pistis refers to trust and confidence, while doxa refers to opinion and acceptance. The English word doctrine is derived from doxa. Belief’s purpose is to guide action and not to indicate truth. (https://infogalactic.com/info/Belief)
Empirical evidence, data, or knowledge, also known as sense experience, is a collective term for the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation. The term comes from the Greek word for experience, ἐεμπειρία (empeiría). After Immanuel Kant, it is common in philosophy to call the knowledge thus gained a posteriori knowledge. This is contrasted with a priori knowledge, the knowledge accessible from pure reason alone.
Essentially, what we are saying is simple. If you have previous, personal knowledge, experience of, or observe something, you have a reason to “believe” that a particular something is true. Previous experience with something tends to give a person fore-knowledge of future events, in relation to the previous experience. There is personal knowledge, and pure reason alone. There is experience. There is a learning experience, which might include “book learning” or “teaching” or even your own experience with no one around.
In any case, you learn something by some method. To this author, personal experience trumps books, or teaching and media experiences or projections. Because, you have yourself, experienced some aspect of learning, it is more real than having read it in a book, seen it on television, or had a professor “explain it to you”.
If you are sitting on the beach one summer and experience extreme heat one year, and a hurricane the next, and the third year, a chill wind from the north at the same time period you’re more than likely to remember the other two experiences and say, “Hmmm, something is not like the other two years”. These things are also known as empirical evidence….
Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of a claim. In the empiricist view, one can claim to have knowledge only when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions. The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory and the testimony of others, ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered secondary, or indirect.
Many of those touting “Climate Change” as true, also seem to have a degree in one thing or another. Some don’t have a degree in anything remotely related to weather, like Bill Nye, a “mechanical engineer”. I’m a “non-degreed electronics engineer”. I have vastly more experience in the field of radio theory than Nye does in his own field – and, am likely more qualified to talk about “Climate Change” because I have meteorological training in addition to other Earth Science training. However, that’s not the point. He’s a “Science Guy” and in the media. He’s also a “comedian” as well. In 1986, Nye left Boeing to pursue comedy, writing and performing jokes and bits for the local sketch television show Almost Live!, where he regularly conducted wacky science experiments.
He is a television actor. He’s part of the reason we should not simply accept what we see on television at face value.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson, also a “scientist”. In reality, he is. He’s an astrophysicist, probably a pretty good one. Also, younger than me. And an African American. And a “believer” of Climate Change. Of the people I’ve heard talk on it, he is the ONLY voice that I have personally listened to and respect. I still don’t believe in “climate change” though, because there is no ‘settled science here’.
Again, he is a famous individual, and using the same tactics the media uses. Scaremongering. When a “scientist” states we “must believe”, then he has stepped into the realm of religion. (https://youtu.be/Jm_YoL9ykC4)
Science is the “craft of knowledge”, not a “belief system”.
If you are forced to “believe” in something, you must have faith it exists or is true. You can not necessarily demonstrate it happens or there is a cause and effect.
Cause and effect is very important here. Cause and effect are related, one event occurs which creates a second event. Lightning causes thunder in the atmosphere. Thunder is the effect generated by a lightning strike ripping through the air at 224,000 miles per hour. Essentially this causes a sonic boom.
Climate Change has a cause and effect. Likely many causes for the effects on the climate.
The media concentrates on ONE and ONLY ONE thing. The amount of carbon dioxide put into the air by humans.
The media doesn’t mention the sun, sun spots, sun’s radiant energy. Media doesn’t mention seasonal changes where they point out “more or less ice” in the antarctic. Instead you will find many satellite images show “more or less” but looking closely you will discover the images are different years, even different decades and invariably the one with “less ice” is a summer image. (Summer occurs in the Antarctic in the WINTER TIME in North America).
They always feel to mention the cause and effect of taking pictures at the wrong time of year.
We have kept scientific records for about 400 to 500 years. The Chinese kept sunspot records. Temperatures have been recorded by humans since they developed a thermometer and measurements. (mid 1700s) In 1593, Galileo invented a “thermoscope”, a device capable of demonstrating rudimentary temperature changes. There were no scales yet.
Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit was the German physicist who invented the alcohol thermometer in 1709, and the mercury thermometer in 1714. In 1724, he introduced the standard temperature scale that bears his name—Fahrenheit Scale—that was used to record changes in temperature in an accurate fashion.
The point being, while we could record some information, it was inaccurate at best, and with no scales, it’s useless today. Ice cores are pulled from the arctic and antarctic and CO2 is measured. But, core samples are not 100% accurate either, nor, can they give exact dates for the cores. Only approximate decades.
The Earth, we know, has gone through multiple Cooling and Warming Cycles. Ice Ages come and go.
Our last one was about 10,000 years ago, with a “mini Ice Age” in the 1700s. This is a historical fact. And we’re still, technically “coming out of it”. Also, a historical fact.
The Little Ice Age as it is called lasted from about the 16th to 19th centuries. (https://earthsky.org/earth/volcanoes-might-have-triggered-the-little-ice-age)
At about the middle time period of this “little ice age” another event was occurring. The Maunder Minimum, also known as the “prolonged sunspot minimum”, is the name used for the period around 1645 to 1715 during which sunspots became exceedingly rare, as was then noted by solar observers.
Dead in the middle of the “Little Ice Age”.
How many SUVs existed then? None. How much oil was being burned by humans? None, or at least very little. How many modern factories spewing gasses into the air existed? None.
At the end of the of this little ice age, the Industrial revolution was really just getting into it’s infancy. And still, there was an insignificant amount of gasses being blown into the air.
Cause and effect. It is also believed that the sun caused this little Ice Age. And, there were also volcanoes that may have contributed to the issue.
If volcanoes contributed, then how can CO2 be the culprit?
Also, note that the little Ice Age wasn’t necessarily global, but was essentially restricted to the Northern Hemisphere according to many records, AND even just to the North American Continent. England had colder temperatures in the 1600s, and there were times when it was normal.
So, was the sun spots, or rather, lack thereof a cause and the effect being a little ice age? Many scientists “believe this to be true” now.
The one take away is that, however it happened, the SUN contributed greatly to the little Ice Age.
Oh, and this is “climate change”.
But, it certainly wasn’t human caused.
The media uses buzz words, and sometimes they use scientific terms in an effort to cause you to take notice. A form of “social engineering”. DeGrass Tyson and Nye are both quite guilty of this, and are media personalities.
The Weather Channel is another media outlet. If you listen to them they can’t predict where the next hurricane is going to track, let alone where it will land. How can they be so dead set on a path for destruction of a 1 degree Celsius variation of the Earth’s temperature twenty years hence?
Simply put, they can’t.
They are a media outlet, they get people to watch them based on suspense, based on scare tactics, based on how they can keep you hanging on to the next word, which comes right after this next advertisement (to get you to buy things).
It is HOW they MAKE THEIR MONEY.
The long and short of it is simple. The Media is out to make big money. They do it by enticing you, the population, to watch them. They keep you in suspense, give you reasons why you’re going to die, and they fall into line with those who tell them “we’re going to die….” and forget the part “…if we don’t keep the government giving us grants to investigate this climate change stuff!”
Part Three is coming soon.