"Global Warmunism"
is best described
as a "secular religion".
Like conventional religions,
beliefs are based on faith,
not real science, and
logical fallacies are common.
.
.
.
The global warmunists'
six most common
logical fallacies:
.
.
.
(1)
ad hominem
( "to the man" )
( aka character attacks ):
Question the fairy tale
of a coming climate
change catastrophe,
that we've been hearing
about since the 1960's,
and you'll get character
attacked.
Your motives
will be questioned,
and you'll be called
a "science denier", or a
"climate change denier".
.
Character attacks are used
by warmunists to justify
refusing to debate
their "visions"
of a coming climate
catastrophe -- "visions"
since the 1960s.
.
.
.
.
.
(2)
argumentum ad populum:
( the belief that truth
is determined by a vote ).
Honest surveys show
a majority of scientists,
engineers, and meteorologists
don't agree with the fantasy
of a coming climate catastrophe.
That's why warmunists
create surveys with
cleverly worded questions,
delete responses they don't like,
and misinterpret what
many respondents actually
believe.
The cleverly worded questions
in most surveys would force
my answers into the alleged 97%
consensus, ( simply because I believe
humans are likely to have some effect
on the climate, although there is no
definitive proof of that ).
.
.
.
.
.
(3)
post hoc ergo propter hoc
( after this, therefore because of it ):
The warmunists claim:
- Burning fossil fuels
added lots of CO2
to the air after 1940.
- And average temperature
increased from 1975 to 2003.
- So CO2 increase MUST HAVE
caused that temperature rise !
That's not logical, because
correlation is not causation.
Especially when the
positive correlation
of CO2 and temperature
was for only 28 years
( 1975 to 2003 ).
But the "age of man made CO2"
was almost three times longer
than that -- the 79 years
from 1940 to 2019.
.
.
.
.
.
(4)
Straw man, and
Either-or thinking
Warmunists will claim
if you don't agree with
ALL of their beliefs, then
you're a "climate change
denier".
.
And if you believe
humans have some effect
on the average temperature,
that means you agree with
ALL of their beliefs
( that man made CO2 emissions
control the climate, and a climate
catastrophe is in progress ).
.
They push people into
two extreme straw men:
(a) "for us", or
(b) "against us".
Using two extreme straw men
eliminates the most logical
conclusion about climate change:
(1)
Earth's climate
is always changing,
from natural causes,
and
(2)
There may be additional
climate changes caused
by humans, but so far
they weren't large enough
to be obvious in the historical
temperature data.
The average temperature
has remained in a 1 degree C.
range since 1880 --
that narrow range suggests
only harmless natural
temperature variations
since 1880 -- nothing unusual
that could not be natural
climate change.
It was natural climate change,
of course, that melted glaciers
covering most of Canada
20,000 years ago, not burning
coal and gasoline !
.
.
.
.
.
(5)
Circular reasoning:
Governments claim they hire
climate modelers because of
their superior scientific knowledge.
.
The climate modelers claim
no government would hire them,
if not for their superior science
knowledge.
This form of circular reasoning
is sometimes called a
"mutual admiration society"!
.
.
.
.
.
(6)
Irrational appeals
(a)
The smug statement:
A government bureaucrat
"scientist" is likely to say:
" No respectable scientist
denies the greenhouse theory
of global warming ! "
This statement
falsely smears all
skeptical scientists,
as not worthy of respect,
and especially not worthy
of a scientific debate.
One can "believe in"
the greenhouse theory,
and also believe CO2
is a minor, harmless
cause of climate change.
.
.
.
(b)
The appeal to authority:
Climate change survey
questions are designed so
respondents seem to agree
about something, in general.
Then the survey liars claim
respondents actually agree
with ALL of their specific
"CO2 is Evil" beliefs.
.
.
.
Warmunists would also
have us believe that
'votes' of a small subset
of scientists, with almost
all of them on government
payrolls, is real science.
Surveys are an
appeal to authority.
In the history of science,
a strong consensus has been
a very good leading indicator
that the underlying scientific
belief ... would eventually
be proven wrong !