Logical Fallacies of Global Warming

[JoelMcDurmon]

Excerpts from Biblical Logic: In Theory and Practice

One of the “Fallacies of Cause” I address in my book Biblical Logic is one that confuses simultaneity for causation. In other words, just because two things occur at or near the same time, someone may fallaciously assume that one caused the other. We call this Cum Hoc Propter Hoc, which is Latin for “With this, because of this.” The same exposure of folly as the After This Fallacy applies here to the With This Fallacy: a myriad of possible causes exist—many we may not even see or know of—for every given occurrence. This creates a high probability for false causes, even for events that seem to concur in time. Correlation in time cannot guarantee a causal link.

Al Gore’s False Cause

One of the concerning examples I use comes from Al Gore’s crusade against global warming. In his video An Inconvenient Truth, he uses correlational data to back his points: “If you look at a thousand years worth of temperature, and compare it to a thousand years of CO2, you can see how well they fit together.” He admits that the relationship between carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and temperature is very complicated, but states that the most important relationship is this: “when there is more Carbon Dioxide, the temperature gets warmer, because it traps more heat from the sun inside.” Gore, famously now, presents pictures of melted glaciers and icecaps, along with warnings of increases in hurricanes and storms, flooded port cities due to rising ocean levels, and other climate catastrophes should we not immediately begin to reduce carbon emissions and our use of hydrocarbons (a scare-tactic, or Appeal to Fear). More importantly, he correlates modern human activity with the increase in carbon dioxide levels, implying that since humans cause global warming we must take drastic measures to reduce it.

Of course, all of this abuses the “With This” correlational fallacy many times over. To begin with, CO2 is not the primary cause of the “greenhouse effect” that results in higher temperatures. At least two other factors greatly outweigh it: solar activity and another more important greenhouse gas, water vapor. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine argues in a detailed paper, “Atmospheric temperature is regulated by the sun, which fluctuates in activity … by the greenhouse effect, largely caused by atmospheric water vapor (H2O); and by other phenomena that are more poorly understood.”[1] Changes in solar radiation correlate more closely and for a longer period of history with temperature changes than do Gore’s graphs of CO2. As well, “While major greenhouse gas H2O substantially warms the Earth, minor greenhouse gases such as CO2 have little effect.”[2]

On top of this, while global temperatures have indeed risen in recent decades, proponents of Gore’s scare-tactics rarely mention that temperatures for centuries prior cooled considerably. The current rise merely corrects the previous “Little Ice Age.” The warming trend has occurred for much longer than Gore emphasizes, and has created effects that belie more of his claims:

[M]easurements show that the trend of 7 inches per century increase in sea level and the shortening trend in average glacier length both began a century before 1940, yet 84% of total annual human hydrocarbon use occurred only after 1940. Moreover, neither of these trends has accelerated during the period between 1940 and 2007, while hydrocarbon use increased 6 fold.[3]

This scientific paper, which stands behind a petition signed by over 31,000 American scientists, concludes,

There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperature, weather, or landscape. There is no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, or other minor greenhouse gases as has been proposed.[5]

So it seems that—despite Al Gore’s claims about having a “scientific consensus” (a fallacious Appeal to Authority)—other obvious, more relevant, and powerful causes exist to explain global temperature changes other than those claimed by Al Gore (as well as the United Nations and those who follow it). Al’s An Inconvenient Truth contains little more than one big craftily presented With This Because of This Fallacy (packaged with a few other fallacies).

So why would Gore and others present the story this way? Note how he and other liberals intend to “solve” the problem: they propose a tax on carbon emissions as well as a global system of “cap-and-trade” on hydrocarbon usage. In plain language, these measures amount to a redistribution of wealth where more prosperous people and nations that use more fuel end up paying tons of money to third-world nations that do not. “Global Warming” simply acts as a mask and a fear factor for advancing the leftist political agenda, and increasing global government control of free and prosperous nations like the United States. Global warming is not an “inconvenient truth,” it is a convenient lie.[5]

Al Gore’s Slippery Slope

The Fallacy of Slippery Slope involves the claim that if a particular action is taken it will inevitably lead to another particular and undesirable event, or series of events. The idea imagines, for example, that a person who takes a first step onto a steep slope will slide all the way to the bottom. Therefore, it argues, it is better to avoid that first step altogether. But this assumes a number of things (keeping with the metaphor): 1) that the slope actually exists; 2) that the slope is steep enough to cause someone to slip; 3) that the person stepping has not prepared some means of adequate footing, for example, special boots or ropes; and 4) that the slope actually leads exactly where the arguer claims it does. All of these assumptions, and probably more, indicate that Slippery Slope thinking is fallacious without lots of supporting qualifications.

Al Gore creates a gross Slippery Slope argument with his claims about increasing greenhouse gases in the future. The now-debunked graph that his film An Inconvenient Truth popularized earned the nickname “the hockey stick” because it shows only mild fluctuations in the amount of CO2 until the last few decades, and then drastically shoots upward—thus forming the shape of a hockey stick. Even if his graph represented the data accurately (it does not), this would still not warrant the conclusion that Gore draws from it. In order to make his rhetorical point he mounts a man-lift and elevates it several feet high. He then points to the top of a big screen where the spike on his graph goes “off the charts.” Such is the radical future we face if we do not cut CO2 emission!

Of course this unwarranted extrapolation commits classically fallacious Slippery Slope thinking. Anyone could make any kind of radical prediction like this by simply extending the last upswing or down-tick of data indefinitely. The real question remains, “Is such an extrapolation warranted?” (Remember the books DOW 30,000, DOW 36,000, and DOW 40,000, all predicting wild extrapolations for the stock market?) And still then, even if the data warrants such a speculation, it cannot prove such a speculative event will come to pass, simply because many factors could yet affect the future.

Peter corrected a reverse application of “Slippery Slope to doomsday” thinking in his day. Instead, God’s judgment did loom very near on the Jewish people as Jesus had predicted. Critics of the promised return of Christ argued that since Christ had not yet returned for sometime (probably nearing 40 years) therefore the promise was a hoax and Christ would never return. Peter relates their fallacy:

Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation” (2 Pet. 3:3–4).

Peter corrects their fallacy by reminding them who actually controls the slope of history:

But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance (2 Pet. 3:8–9).

Like so many fallacies that people commit, the remedy lies in the fact that God reigns supreme, and His Word shall come to pass. Any human reasoning that deviates from this standard risks all manner of fallacy. Al Gore may have learned that had he not quit divinity school. Instead, he is abusing human reason hoping to further break God’s law: to steal from some nations and give to others. At least it’s easy to see through.

Endnotes:

[1] Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson and Willie Soon, “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,” Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 12:3 (Fall 2007):79. Available at http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/robinson.pdf (accessed February 11, 2009).
[2] Arthur B. Robinson, et al, “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,” 79.
[3] Arthur B. Robinson, et al, “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,” 82. Emphasis mine.
[4] Arthur B. Robinson, et al, “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,” 89.
[5] See also Christopher C. Horner, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2007).

[bmarinov]

You da man, Joel. Very nice analysis.

[keepingtabs]

not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance 2 Pet. 3:9

You don't really believe this! Doesn't line up with TULIP. Just another example of wanting to sound like main line Christianity, but doesn' really believe it.

[James]

keepingtabs,

That's a bold and rude statement to make about someone you don't even know.

[Brother Les]

Is it me, or has anyone noticed that every time there seems to be a big 'global warming' meeting .... it snows like crazy? Is God trying to tell us sonmething here?

by James » Fri Dec 18, 2009 4:56 pm

keepingtabs,

That's a bold and rude statement to make about someone you don't even know.
keepingtabs,

Quote keepingtabs Re: Logical Fallacies of Global Warming
by keepingtabs »

not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance 2 Pet. 3:9

You don't really believe this! Doesn't line up with TULIP. Just another example of wanting to sound like main line Christianity, but doesn' really believe it.

1) Calvinism is a 'mainline' Christian teaching
2) Arimnianism is a 'mainline' Christian teaching
3) "Keepingtabs" statement is outside of the thought of the article.... but it is valid about the impression that TUILP gives
4) This is a very good article and Joel should be shown the respect deserved for writing it.

[keepingtabs]

"Keepingtabs" statement is outside of the thought of the article.... but it is valid about the impression that TUILP gives

Thank you.

This is a very good article and Joel should be shown the respect deserved for writing it.

Point taken.
I apologize, first to Joel, second to all other posters.

[JoelMcDurmon]

keepingtabs:

I accept your quick and sincere apology. I will answer your assumption about 2 Pet. 3:9. (James, if you feel the need to move this to another thread due to off-topic, go ahead. I don't mind.)

When dealing with 2 Pet 3:9 it helps to quote the whole verse: "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance." Note: "toward YOU." Peter is not addressing the whole word in all ages here (as the Arminian would have us believe), he is talking to a specific local audience.

And who was that audience? The opening of the letter tells us: "Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours , by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ..." (2 Pet. 1:1).

This is a letter written to the elect, Christians, believers, however you wish to say it (just as Peter's first letter was --- see 1 Pet. 1:1-5). When Peter thus says that God is "patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish," he means "any of you [Christians, his audience]." Peter was an "apostle of the circumcision," and He was reassuring his persecuted Jewish-Christian audience that the coming would take place (contrary to the scoffers---very likely unbelieving Jews), but God had more of "you" to bring to repentance yet. And God did give them plenty of time before the coming of the Lord in AD 70 to destroy Jerusalem.

There is nothing here that doesn't line up with TULIP. And I DO believe every word of it.

God bless.

[jewelsprout]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews_deca/ynews_deca_ts1018

These 9 year olds in above link are learning in school, apparantly, that its GLOBAL WARMING as to why we have a recession and people are losing their jobs. Because there is not enough resources in the world. Not the Federal Governments' mismanagement of our monetary system, mind you, or rogue banking system....its ALL GLOBAL WARMING and governments MUST MANAGE US EVEN MORE NOW. They need even more control over our system.

Amazing! Hurt people, blame something else that is non existant and get away with it. Only in a super clever propaganda world.

When will the sheer lies end? Answer: When enough Christians care.

There seems to be a terrible beastly control personality that continually crops up STILL to this day. I know what I read in Scripture and I KNOW its past tense what happened in 70ad but why is this type of governing happening? Why are we losing a once Christian culture to lies? I seriously wonder how many Christians truly understand that if they would JUST ASK God will speak, give, and SOLVE.

http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/ind ... number=101

Darkness was not abolished off the face of the earth with the New Covenant. Maybe therein lies the confusion.

James 4:2
Colossians 1:9
Colossians 2:2, 8, 9

[Thomas]

Interestingly enough, tonight I was in my office and my children left the television on downstairs before they left for a Christmas party. It was on our PBS station and some show came on about "Climate Change," so I was listening to it. They started out talking about the "clear and present danger" that "climate change" poses and that we (e.g., various worldwide governments) had to take massive action now or face the certain demise of the planet. They continued interviewing some kook while walking through a museum and having him explain why this was so important. He begins by talking about some toad that used to hatch their young in its stomach, which is now an extinct specie, and because it is extinct we will never know how these tadpoles failed to be digested - implying that if we did know we would have the miracle cure for ulcers and various like ailments. He continued this type of reasoning through several other specie of animals - who, by the way, suffered demise as a direct result (his claim) of "climate change." Thus, we must enact various types of legislation world wide to save mother earth.

At the end of the interview the interviewer said specifically about the man and his colleagues, that they were "attempting to facilitate the ascent of man through the intelligent control of evolution."

These nut jobs are dangerous. The theocratic totalitarianism they want to establish world wide is terrifying. On one hand they believe that all that is was a cosmic accident, which is an incredible - yet stupid, faith. Yet, when it gets to man - they have to control evolution thereafter so that man can continue his ascent up this chain of being - and nothing exists beyond man and his knowledge.

This particular fellow and his colleagues wrote a book, if I heard it correctly, called "Sustaining Life." It's all about their stupid religious beliefs, truly dark stuff.

[mgranny]

In plain language, these measures amount to a redistribution of wealth where more prosperous people and nations that use more fuel end up paying tons of money to third-world nations that do not.

Thomas wrote: “These nut jobs are dangerous. The theocratic totalitarianism they want to establish world wide is terrifying.”

Thomas, you got it right!

Why do these so called “world leaders” want to “redistribute” our wealth instead of allowing the third world to develop free enterprise, industry, and commerce, and thus produce their own wealth? These are super intelligent people and know very well that wealth cannot be distributed; it must be continuously produced and continuously circulated. Money is no real wealth, it is precious metal, or paper, or anything else that people use as a tool for exchanging wealth. The real wealth is food, clothing, housing, medicine, infrastructure, and generally the products of industry that people want to use for their comfort, betterment, and enjoyment of life. If these things are not produced, no amount of money on earth can buy them.

My question is this: What are they going to do with the money they extort from us? Would they use it as capital for poor people to develop industry and commerce? Far from it. They are using it to bribe corrupt leaders in the third world to PREVENT free enterprise and the development of industry and commerce. The people in the third world are starving and killing each other. They want to keep it that way.

The “redistribution” of wealth is not about elevating the living standard of the poor people in the world. It is keeping them poor and thus reducing their numbers. This is the Malthusian principle. “Climate change” is about population control. It is about controlling life and death.

The “scholars,” the present “ruling class of Europe” (Nietzsche’s terms) cannot be straightforward, because their goals are horrendous, unnatural, and demonic. They are not simply Marxists; if it is possible, they are even more sinister. They are Malthusian-Darwinist-Marxists. They combined all their evil forces. They are basking in the glory of biological science that ostensibly, deposed God.

Malthus (an Anglican clergyman) was a false prophet. He scientifically “proved” that bigger population would mean more starvation. With this logic, the American Indians should have had higher living standard than people in the modern United States! Nevertheless, nothing is more painful for godless intellectuals than to be proven wrong. They conceded that we can produce enough food, but they forecast that our air supply is limited! The coming doom is even bigger than before!

Essentially, these people are still fighting their 19th century battles against the Industrial Revolution and the Bible. In other words, they are still fighting against economic freedom and spiritual truth.

[csack]

you also forgot something about the CO2/temp plot - if you look closely, temp changes PRECEDE CO2 changes. i've never seen a global warming supporter explain this.

[mgranny]

Please, check out this link:

http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/11/un- ... more-44722