Another insightful piece by Jon Rappoport.
“I used to think people accepted manmade warming because they robotically equated it with ‘helping the planet’, ‘saving the planet’, and ‘hating the corporations’. Then I thought, these equations are intentionally being piped into people’s minds as a form of programming. Then I thought, most people can no longer even recognize a line of reasoning about manmade warming or any other subject. Then I thought, all these things are happening at the same time.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)
These days, what passes for logic is the effort to associate one idea with another favored idea. Then the first idea is accepted as fact.
If the first idea were “all Martians wear tuxedos,” and people associated that with “juicy burgers are delicious,” they would conclude that Martians, without doubt, all wear tuxes.
Associating with one idea with another is also, of course, a propaganda/advertising device.
Apparently, schools no longer teach students what a scientific hypothesis is.
If they do, those students disappear and are never heard from again.
First of all, a hypothesis is a provisional statement that remains to be confirmed through experiments.
Confirmation, in this case, means making a correct prediction. Not just any prediction, but a useful one.
Let’s start with a trivial hypothesis:
“If it snows, there are clouds.”
We should be able to use that hypothesis to predict what we’ll see in the sky whenever it’s snowing. Clouds. So we record numerous instances of snow and we find that, yes, there are clouds in the sky every time. We were able to predict clouds.
Is that a useful prediction? This is a matter of opinion. Most people would say no.
Here is another example of a hypothesis.
“If a patient has fungal infection X, he will develop a fever.”
We examine 5000 people and establish that they have fungal infection X. We predict they will all have fevers. We test them, and they do have fevers.
We used our hypothesis to make a prediction, and we were correct. Was the prediction useful? Some people would probably say yes.
Let’s go one step further. The factual truth or falsity of a hypothesis is beside the point. Any hypothesis is acceptable, IF we can deploy it to make a useful prediction.
We could assert, for instance, that the moon is made of green cheese. From that starting point, if we could go on to make a useful prediction that we could then confirm by observation, the “green cheese” hypothesis would be acceptable.
Suppose, against all odds, conventionally speaking, we begin with this hypothesis: the space of the entire universe is filled with an aether.
And suppose we can describe this aether well enough to make a prediction about the positions of two previously unseen black holes. We then discover that, yes, these holes are exactly where we said they’d be.
The aether hypothesis would be acceptable. It’s useful.
And…the question of whether the aether actually exists? Irrelevant.
Something like this occurs in modern physics. These two hypotheses sit side by side: the basic composition of matter is particles; the basic composition is waves. Both hypotheses allow useful (and different) predictions. Therefore, both are accepted, even though they contradict each other.
Now, take this hypothesis: The Earth has become warmer by X degrees over the past 1000 years.
Putting all the chatter aside, have scientists deployed this hypothesis to make accurate, specific, and useful predictions about warming?
So far, the answer is no.
That eliminates, for the time being, the acceptance of the warming hypothesis. Many predictions have been made, many alarm bells have been rung, many dire warnings have been issued, many threats have been launched…but no correct and useful predictions.
However, scientists will say their (rejected) hypothesis is also a statement of fact. That is, it is a summary derived from thousands of measurements of temperatures, now and in the past, on land, sea, and air.
Not only that, investigation also reveals humans have directly and significantly contributed to the recent warming trend.
At this point, we are leaving the method of hypothesizing and predicting, and moving to a question of fact, a debate about the accuracy of all those temperature measurements and the causes creating the observed changes.
Among scientists, there is a great deal of disagreement about the accuracy of the measurements. Any fair examination of studies and their critics will reveal that.
In this regard, the science is not settled. Far from it.
So: useless as a hypothesis, the assertion of manmade warming, as fact, is wide open to debate. To say the least.
Students, starting at, say, the age of 12, should be taught basic facts about hypotheses, how they function in science, and on what basis they should be accepted or rejected.
Then we would have far less ignorance and chaotic “debate” and partisan screaming about science.
Except for the scientists themselves, of course—those who are on someone’s payroll and are expected to falsify everything they touch on behalf of that special interest.
An educated public would go a long way toward laughing those professional liars out of court. (My emphasis)
Which is why universities (who sell themselves to those liars’ bosses) don’t teach logic or the basic structure of science.
The status of a hypothesis becomes a radically different proposition in the hands of someone who understands how a hypothesis works, when it should be accepted or rejected, and therefore how much irrelevant noise, fabrication, and political nonsense are brought to the table by people with devious motives.