Circular reasoning
is a logical fallacy
where an unproven theory
is used for
research design,
research methodology
and data interpretation.
Circular reasoning is not
a formal logical fallacy
but a defect in an argument
where the premises
are just as much
in need of proof or evidence
as the conclusion,
and as a result,
the argument is not persuasive.
This fallacy is often found
in climate change "science",
where biased researchers
start with a conclusion,
and do not seek the truth.
They seek to prove a CO2 theory
(CO2 controls the average temperature)
that they already believe in.
The result is confirmation bias,
such as claiming unreasonably
small margins of error for the data,
unreasonably high confidence
levels, and always ignoring
contradictory, or less persuasive,
data.
data.
As a result,
(it seems that)
(it seems that)
nothing can happen
to the climate that will ever
falsify the CO2 theory.
The belief that CO2 is evil
provides a reason for
environmental activism,
and virtue signaling
( the false claims of saving our planet
from a climate catastrophe ).
Circular reasoning
in climate change research
is the use of climate models
to test the CO2 theory.
That makes no sense,
because the models
are just expressions
of the unproven CO2 theory
that is being tested!
The model's average temperature
predictions assume
the underlying CO2 theory
is correct !
But the model's average temperature
predictions have been very wrong
for the past 30 years.
You may not realize that fact,
because it's never mentioned
by the mainstream media.
The models are wrong
but the scary predictions
of a coming climate change disaster
never change.
This climate change scaremongering,
for the past three decades
( four decades if you include global cooling
predictions from the 1970s ),
is not science, it is a secular religion.