The climate alarmists' six most common
logical fallacies:
.
.
(1) ad hominem
( "to the man" )
( aka character attacks ):
Question the coming climate change crisis that has been predicted since the late 1950's and you'll get character attacked.
You'll be called a "climate denier".
.
Character attacks are very useful to justify refusing to debate the "apocalyptic 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
do NOT expect a coming climate catastrophe.
That's why surveys with cleverly worded questions were created, and unwanted responses were deleted, or misinterpreted what many respondents actually
believed.
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"
actually started after 1940, not in 1975 -- so why is the 35 year period, from 1940 to 1975, with NO global warming, so often ignored ?
And why is the global cooling in that period, from -0.3 to -0.5 degrees C. being gradually and quietly "adjusted" away, so that now we are told there was -0.1 degree C. cooling in that period, or no cooling at all !
.
.
.
(4)
Straw man, and
Either-or thinking
Climate alarmists claim if you don't agree with ALL of their beliefs, then you're a "climate denier".
.
And they often falsely assume that if you believe humans have some effect on the global average temperature, that means you agree with ALL of their beliefs ( that man made CO2 emissions control the climate, and a climate crisis 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 conclusions 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 in the past 100 years --
that narrow range does not suggest
anything more than harmless natural
temperature variations -- nothing unusual for our planet.
.
.
.
(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 all 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
a small team, that overturned the existing
scientific consensus.