Members of 5C (Coming Climate Change Catastrophe Cult) are in a secular religion, whether they realize it or not.
.
The Climate Cult is similar to traditional religions in many ways: Their beliefs are based on faith, and logical fallacies are common.
.
Here are the most common Climate Cult logical fallacies:
.
(1) ad hominem (to the man):
People who question their coming climate catastrophe beliefs are character attacked, their motives are questioned, and they are called "deniers".
.
Then the alleged 'poor character and bad motives' of the climate "denier" is used as the excuse to refuse to debate climate catastrophe beliefs with him.
.
Leftists character attack people with different beliefs all the time, and only believe in "free speech" for people who agree with them.
.
.
(2) argumentum ad populum:
The belief that truth is determined by a vote.
Honest surveys usually show most people don't agree with the climate catastrophe predictions.
That would apply to surveys of professional meteorologists, for one example.
.
To get the numbers they want to implement this fallacy, the "warmists" create bogus surveys, delete respondents whose answers they don't like, and misinterpret what the remaining respondents actually said.
.
A recent survey, for example, falsely claimed 99.9% of 2013 and 2014 scientific papers supported the coming climate change catastrophe beliefs based ONLY on reading the abstracts (typically 150 to 250 words), and:
.
(a) Finding the words “climate change”, or “global warming” in the abstract, and
.
(b) Finding no definitive statement in the abstract that humans have no effect on the climate, or that something else explains the rise in temperatures better than CO2.
.
This methodology not only failed to read the papers, but tossed almost all skeptics into the 99.99%.
.
Based on that methodology, almost every article I've ever written about climate change, since my first newsletter article in 2007, would throw me into the 99.99% too, and I consider myself an "ultra-skeptic" -- I think most skeptics are not skeptical enough !
.
.
(3) post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of it):
The "global warmists" claim:
- CO2 in the air increased constantly after 1880
- Average temperature increased in some decades after 1880
- Therefore the CO2 increase must have caused the temperature increase
.
That's not logic: Every scientist should know correlation is not causation.
.
Never mentioned:
(a) Ice core studies show CO2 increases FOLLOWED temperature increases, and
.
(b) Several ice ages came and went with no relationship to estimated CO2 levels -- and we know for sure manmade CO2 didn't cause the warming that melted the one or two mile thick ice that used to cover the property where I live in Michigan.
.
.
.
(4) Straw man, and Either-or thinking
Either the "warmists" will claim if you don't agree with ALL their beliefs, then you deny climate change.
.
Or the "warmists" will claim if you believe humans affect the climate, then you agree with ALL of their beliefs.
.
They push people into these two alternative straw men: (a) "for us", and
(b) "against us".
.
Using two extreme straw men eliminates this logical middle-ground:
.
(a) Earth's climate is always changing, from natural causes, and there could be additional changes caused by humans, and
.
(b) The total climate change in the past 150 years was not abnormal, and did not correlate with CO2 levels from decade to decade, so a strong case can be made to show the CO2 level is not important, and CO2 is certainly not the only "climate controller".
.
.
.
(5) Circular reasoning:
Governments say they hire and pay climate modelers, or give them grants, because of their superior scientific knowledge.
.
The climate modelers claim no governments would hire them, or give them grants, if not for their superior science knowledge.
.
The governments never mention they WANT to have a "crisis" to fight, so they will ONLY pay for scientists who claim they see a climate crisis in the future.
.
The use of climate models to predict the future climate is not even real science, because computer models are not real data -- they are just the personal opinions of the climate modelers.
.
Since the predictions of a "climate catastrophe" are always decades in the future, the predictions can never be proven wrong !
.
.
.
(6) Irrational appeals
(a) The smug statement:
A Climate Cult scientist says: "No respectable scientist denies the greenhouse theory of global warming!"
.
This statement is designed to smear all skeptical scientists as not deserving any respect, and not worthy of debate.
.
(b) The appeal to authority:
The bogus surveys where 97% or 99.9% of scientists are (falsely) claimed to agree about something are an appeal to authority, as if a consensus proves predictions of a coming climate catastrophe are correct.
.
In the history of science, however, a consensus has often been a good leading indicator that the underlying scientific belief would eventually be proven wrong!
.
The bogus climate change surveys only tell us, after misinterpreting abstracts of science papers so that even "deniers" become "believers", that most scientists believe Earth's climate changes, and most believe Earth is slightly warmer than in 1850, and most believe humans might have some effect on the climate.
.
That consensus is FAR from a consensus that manmade CO2 will cause a global warming catastrophe !
.
Other than climate modelers (a small subset of "scientists" paid to predict a coming global warming catastrophe), a majority of scientists do NOT believe manmade CO2 will cause a climate catastrophe in the future.
.
Not that it would matter if 100% of scientists predicted a future climate catastrophe, because scientists can't predict the future any better than astrologists can !