The names they know are Greta thernberg and Al Gore.
How can you know what 2+2 equals if your source of reason is the media and not science.
A few reactions.
(1) How do you even know this? This is not even a verifiable claim, it's just a derisive comment.
(2) Additionally, it is an elementary logical fallacy. "I claim the other side is not sufficiently educated about X, therefore X is not true."
(3) In this case, many sources in "the media" (your term, and again, a derisive and non-specific term, like your earlier "most people") are broadly correct. That is: serious assessments like the National Climate Assessment [1], summarizing the current state of the science, substantiate that there will be many varied and serious impacts of climate change.
[1] NCA: https://nca2018.globalchange.gov
We don’t however need science or such federated rationality to tell us what 2+2 is, rather why 1+3 in floating point is not 4,
https://www.exploringbinary.com/floating-point-questions-are...
Just wanted to say thanks for putting a name to this concept I've been thinking about for a while. Federated Trust, that's great.
If one wants to apply the tin-foil hat theory that climate change is a product of the media industry, then one should also consider that claiming that science debunked climate change would also bring eyeballs. The fact that the mainstream media as well as independents universally report on climate change being true (vs say the effects of various foods on weight loss) should say something about the underlying scientific consensus.
Source?
Neither have most people who are championing it though.
Experts are quit often wrong. Outsourcing your thinking to them blindly seems intellecuallty lazy in my opinion.
If the reason to believe proposition P is that the experts who study this thing say it, most people believe P. That people with obvious non-scientific motives to assert !P do assert !P is not considered evidence of scientific controversy but rather of the non-scientific motives that were obvious in the first place.
I have no motives other than disliking this idea that experts are these angels of truth that should blindly be followed.
All that said, I'm pro-computers because I've got enough familiarity to know it's not a terrible idea and I know that some smart people are intimately involved with computers and so I trust it to all work out.
I am similarly unfamiliar with specific climate studies but trust that climate change is a real issue that needs to be addressed. I'm not going to start calling out a climate denier at a party with specific points of relevance because I don't have a solid grasp of things and, honestly, don't tend to do that at parties - but I'll still look on with judgement at climate deniers as I'm firmly of the opinion (based on popular science) that they're making baseless claims.
I'd love to see a climate wiki that compiled studies / charts / resources for people to actually read the literature - vs the hysterics of the media.
My point is that blindly trusting in the infallibility of experts without thinking for yourself is intellectually lazy.
Whether one believes in climate change or not, they should look at the data for themselves and make up their own mind.
It's not a simple set of facts that scientists discover and move on.
There's ton's of questionable ideas even in the most accepted theories.
For example:
1.Massive leaps in Evolution: "theres no use for half a wing"
2.no one understands how gravity works only how it behaves
3.the source of climate change is pretty speculative due to the fact that it's true that there are indeed massive natural historic temp shifts
5.Scientists don't even understand the folding process of how the DNA fits into a cell.
So science is one large evolving conspiracy theory.
If you think deeply about how little even the smartest monkeys on earth truly know about the universe it will definitly put you into a psych ward.