The climate alarmists' six most common logical fallacies:
(1)
ad hominem
( "to the man" )
( aka character attacks ):
Question the coming climate change catastrophe (CAGW) 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 denier". Character attacks on you are very useful to justify refusing to debate you on the leftist "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, with responses they don't like deleted, and misinterpreting what many respondents actually believe.
The cleverly worded questions in most surveys would force my answers into the 97% consensus, ( simply because I believe humans are likely to have some effect on the climate, although I also believe there is no definitive proof of that, or measurements of how much of an effect ).
.
.
(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 the 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" include 1940, through 1975 too. So why is the 35 year period, from 1940 to 1975, with NO global warming, so often ignored. According to NCAR in 1975, the maximum decline during that period, from the month with the peak, to the month with the trough, was close to -0.6 degrees C. of global cooling. That global cooling has since been revised away by smarmy government bureaucrats with science degrees committing science fraud.
.
.
(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 following two 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 roughly a 1 degree C. range since 1880 -- that narrow range does not suggest anything more than harmless natural temperature variations since 1880 -- more like nothing unusual.
.
.
(5)
Circular reasoning:
Governments claim they hire climate scientists and modelers because of their superior scientific knowledge. The climate scientists modelers claim governments hire them because of their superior science knowledge. This form of circular reasoning is commonly 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 as we describe it. '
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 simultaneously believe CO2 is a minor and harmlesscause 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 will eventually be proven wrong !
Great scientific accomplishments are usually from an exceptional individual, or a small team, that overturned the existing scientific consensus.