Climate change fallacy
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
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?
Comments on Question
Answers
2Besides 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.
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.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
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? :-)