Climate change fallacy

What fallacy would it be to suggest that since climate changed before the burning of fossil fuels means fossil fuels cant be causing climate change now?

asked on Wednesday, Feb 17, 2021 09:36:51 PM by Jason Mathias

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

Jordan Pine writes:

Not sure it’s a non-sequitur given the assumed argument that precedes the fallacy, which is typically that burning fossil fuels caused global warming.

I think causal reduction is the better choice. Interestingly, I believe the post hoc and cum hoc fallacies fall under that general umbrella (Dr. Bo can confirm), which is relevant to this debate in the following ways...

POST HOC FALLACY

“If you look at this graph (e.g. the infamous ‘hockey stick’), you can clearly see that global temperature increases after CO2 increases.”

CUM HOC FALLACY

“If you look at this graph (e.g. the infamous ‘hockey stick’), you can clearly see that global temperature increases as CO2 increases.”

For me, this raises the question of whether the counter-argument is some inverse of this fallacy?

ANTE HOC FALLACY?

”If you look at THIS graph, you can clearly see that global temperature increases before CO2 increases.”

NON HOC FALLACY?

”If you look at THIS graph, you can clearly see global temperature increases when there is NO increase in CO2.”

Non Hoc Ergo Non Propter Hoc? :-)

posted on Thursday, Feb 18, 2021 12:34:02 PM

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Uncomfortable Ideas: Facts don't care about feelings. Science isn't concerned about sensibilities. And reality couldn't care less about rage.

This is a book about uncomfortable ideas—the reasons we avoid them, the reasons we shouldn’t, and discussion of dozens of examples that might infuriate you, offend you, or at least make you uncomfortable.

Many of our ideas about the world are based more on feelings than facts, sensibilities than science, and rage than reality. We gravitate toward ideas that make us feel comfortable in areas such as religion, politics, philosophy, social justice, love and sex, humanity, and morality. We avoid ideas that make us feel uncomfortable. This avoidance is a largely unconscious process that affects our judgment and gets in the way of our ability to reach rational and reasonable conclusions. By understanding how our mind works in this area, we can start embracing uncomfortable ideas and be better informed, be more understanding of others, and make better decisions in all areas of life.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

Bo Bennett, PhD 4	Besides the general non sequitur ... The failure in reasoning here stems from causal reductionism , or assuming climate change has a single cause (or multiple causes limited to only the single category of "naturalistic") and not entertaining the fact that causes can also be man-made. In essence, it is the failure to accept the possibility of other causes.
	answered on Thursday, Feb 18, 2021 08:35:06 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories
Comments

TrappedPrior (RotE) 1	Yep, non sequitur. Logical form (I should have done this before): P1) Climate changed before the burning of fossil fuels P2) We are burning fossil fuels now C) Climate change cannot be because of fossil fuel burning Conclusion does not follow. However, I think causal reductionism is the better fit (see Dr Bo's comment) as it is more specific.
	answered on Thursday, Feb 18, 2021 06:01:01 AM by TrappedPrior (RotE)
TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories
Comments