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.