[Azred]

Originally Posted by ElfBane @Azred Welcome back Mathsorcerer.

Hello to you, too. What happens at the Oasis stays at the Oasis and had absolutely nothing to do with me...as you well know.

*************
The logical fallacy of False Cause; notice, specifically, the section on post hoc ergo propter hoc.

the fallacy of arguing that one event was caused by another event merely because it occurred after that event

To claim that temperatures are rising because of human activity cannot be authenticated with any accuracy or definitiveness whatsoever. The true cause of any climate fluctuation is what it has always been--natural cycles. Our weather records go back only 350 years, at best, which is an insigificant amount of time to make any accurate predictions about long-term climate.

Note, also, the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam.

the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true

Climate alarmists would have us all believe that because some computer models show a doom-and-gloom scenario and that no one can disprove those models that their conclusions are correct, a classic case of this particular fallacy.

Next comes argumentum ad populum.

The fallacy of attempting to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the feeling and enthusiasms of the multitude. There are several variations of this fallacy, but we will emphasize two forms: "Snob Appeal": the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion by appealing to what an elite or a select few (but not necessarily an authority) in a society thinks or believes. "Bandwagon": the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion on the grounds that all or most people think or believe it is true.

Alarmists want us to believe that because a small group of climate scientists, not all of whom agree with themselves, say that something is true then it is true. Besides, which version of the alarmists should we believe? The ones from the late 70s and early 80s who predicted a mini-ice age or the ones from the late 80s and early 90s who predicted the end of all polar ice caps and vast reaches of deserts?

Finally, we have argumentum ad hominem.

the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.

Much of the time, the instant anyone doesn't go along with the "human beings are destroying the global climate" philosophy is called a variety of names or they are accused of being in the pay of Big Oil or some sort of rabid dog who wants to fill the world with smoke stacks and strip mines. This is not simply incorrect, it is ridiculous.

People also fail to separate the issues of "climate change" and "environmental quality". I may not believe that humans are altering the climate but I do believe that we need to keep the environment healthy.

I would still like to see anyone try and force countries like India and China to have the restrictions put onto them like alarmists have done in the United States. People are still engaging slash-and-burn agriculture in Brazil, but I don't hear people wailing about it.