Total Pageviews

Sunday, June 9, 2019

Climate Alarmism is based on Six Logical Fallacies

Recycled: 
Published for a third time:

Because this subject 
needs to be read again, 
with minor revisions
to shorten the article,
and this time I used
the more precise term,
 "climate alarmists"
rather than the term
"global warmunists",
which upsets some readers:


Like conventional religions, 
climate alarmism beliefs 
are based on faith, 
not real science, and 
logical fallacies 
are very common.
.
.
.
The climate alarmists' 
six most common 
logical fallacies:  
.
.
(1) 
ad  hominem
( "to the man" )
( aka character attacks ):

Question the
coming climate 
change catastrophe, 
that we've been hearing
from some scientists
since the late 1950's,
and you'll get 
character attacked. 

You'll be called a 
"climate change denier". 
.
Character attacks 
are very useful
to justify refusing 
to debate the "vision" 
of a coming climate 
catastrophe.
.
.
.
(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 expect a coming 
climate catastrophe. 

That's why surveys with 
cleverly worded questions
were created, responses 
they didn't like were deleted, 
and what many respondents
believed was misinterpreted.

The cleverly worded questions 
in most surveys would force 
my answers into the alleged 97% 
consensus, ( simply because I suspect
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 climate alarmists claim:
- Burning fossil fuels 
added lots of CO2 
to the air after 1940.

- And average temperature 
increased after 1975.

- So CO2 increase 
MUST  HAVE  CAUSED
that temperature rise !

That's not logical, 
because correlation 
is not causation.

Of course "the age 
of man made CO2" 
started in 1940, 
not in 1975
-- so why is the 
35 year period,
from 1940 to 1975, 
with absolutely
NO global warming,
so often ignored ?  
.
.
.
(4) 
Straw man, and 
Either-or  thinking
Climate alarmists will claim 
if you don't agree with 
ALL of their beliefs, then 
you're a "climate change 
denier".
.
And they often claim 
that 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 have not been 
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, and that is 
nothing unusual. 
.
.
.
(5) 
Circular reasoning:
Governments claim they hire 
climate modelers because of 
their superior scientific 
knowledge.
.
The climate modelers claim 
the government hires them
because of 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.
.
.
.
Climate alarmists 
would also 
have us believe that
'votes' of a small subset 
of scientists, with almost
all of them on state 
or federal government 
payrolls, or grants,
is real science.

Surveys are an 
appeal to authority.

In fact, the history of science 
shows us that a strong consensus 
has been a good leading indicator 
that the underlying scientific 
belief ... would eventually 
be proven wrong !

Great scientific accomplishments
are usually from an exceptional
individual, or small team, that 
overturned the existing
scientific consensus.