Global warming disciples use arguments on a shaky logical foundation. Examine a few and you’ll quickly spot them.
We’ll examine a few logical errors of some global warming arguments. The scientific ones we’ll leave for another time, but many of those share an equally shaky foundation. In short, the global warming crowd frequently uses logical errors in an attempt to “prove” their point, but it demonstrates they can’t form an argument logically or use critical thinking.
Skeptic Argument vs What the Science Says
“Science” doesn’t say anything. Only facts exist — science is what you do with those facts. The facts say your body is infected with a virus, “science” says we’d better use leaches and bleed you (not a good idea and worthless as discovered later).
In other words, facts are facts, science is opinion about those facts.
“Climate’s changed before” Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.
Statement made without proof. The entire debate around global warming is the cause. This statement assumes facts not in evidence (also known as assuming what you’re trying to prove).
“There is no consensus” 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.
Argumentum ad populum, also known as appeal to majority. If everyone believes it it must be true. Recall when everyone thought the world was flat? It doesn’t mater who or what people believe, it matters what is true.
“Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy” A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident.
Not a logical error per se, but if the scientists who have a vested interest in continuing, are they really unbiased? Can they be trusted? In other words, should criminal courts allow criminals to determine verdicts? 80% of criminals say Charles Manson was framed.
“500 scientists refute the consensus” Around 97% of climate experts agree that humans are causing global warming.
Argumentum ad populum again. It wouldn’t matter if 100% agreed, truth doesn’t care if you believe it or not, and certainly won’t change from poll numbers.
Also argument from authority — “climate experts” believe it, so it must be true. Once again, truth doesn’t care if you’re a PhD or a pre-school dropout. The question remains is it true?
“Hansen’s 1988 prediction was wrong” Jim Hansen had several possible scenarios; his mid-level scenario B was right.
OK, we’ll tackle this as a matter of science. The scientific method makes predictions, then observations. If the observations back up the prediction, it’s a measure of evidence your theory was correct.
When global warming theorizes increased rain — as well as drought — are signs of global warming, it means they lack the ability to follow the scientific method. Thus, global warming is not science by definition. It’s more a philosophy, or for the worshipers of mother gaia, it’s a religion. It’s anything but science.
Once again, a good book for logic is Jason Lisle’s “Discerning Truth” (ISBN 978-0890515945). It’s too bad so many global warming “scientists” haven’t read it as they continue to make basic Logic 101 errors.