IS THERE A LOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING?

A logical argument has a series of true statements followed by a conclusion that is derived only from the evidence of the statements and does not omit any relevant statements that could disprove the conclusion.  Click here to see our Logic pages.

We will use the old term Global Warming for this argument since the term Climate Change is so ambiguous as to be useless.  Earth’s’ climate has been changing ever since our planet developed a climate.  With this in mind, let’s examine the argument for man-made Global Warming.

The argument for Global Warming, as stated by its proponents, is fairly straightforward:

1. The earth’s climate has been getting dramatically warmer in recent decades.

2. A warmer climate will be disastrous for mankind.

3. We suspect the warmer climate is caused by man-made pollution, especially carbon  dioxide and methane, since the climate gets warmer as our pollution increases.

4. Scientists can find no other readily available reason for climate warming.

Conclusion:  Therefore man-made pollution is causing the climate to get warmer.

Global Warming proponents will point out that they have large quantities of evidence to back up their argument but the five steps above is their argument boiled down to its essence.

Now let’s look at the truth of statements 1 through 4.

Statement 1:

  • The earth’s climate has been getting dramatically warmer in recent decades.
  • Earth’s climate did get warmer during the 1980’s and 1990’s.
  • Earth’s climate got warmer during the 1930’s and 1940’s.
  • Earth’s climate cooled during the 1970’s.
  • Earth’s climate has been cooling slightly since 2000.
  • Corrected NASA temperature data shows that the 1990’s were not the hottest years in the US.
  • The corrected data showed that the hottest year was 1934 (during the Dust Bowl Era).
  • Corrected data spreads the hottest years over much of the 20th century rather than grouped at the end of the century.
  • Corrected climate data does not get near the publicity of the original inaccurate data.
  • The famous “Hockey Stick” graph showing earth’s climate getting warmer now more than ever before in history is a primary piece of evidence for Global Warming.
  • The “Hockey Stick” graph fudges the impact of the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warm Period.
  • The corrected graph shows two additional spikes in temperature for those additional warming periods.
  • Investigation into the “Hockey Stick” graph has shown that random data fed into the computational model will still yield a “hockey stick” indicating that the model is deeply flawed.
  • The corrected graph looks more like a roller coaster than a hockey stick.
  • Temperatures prior to about 1900 are derived from scientific guesses rather than thermometers.
  • Anecdotal evidence indicates that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than our current climate (for instance, England was a major wine producer during this period).
  • Leaked e-mails verify that corrupted data has been used in climate research and Global Warming conclusions derived from that research are therefore suspect.
  • Data has been manipulated in the US also as Global Warming scientists used 6000 stations worldwide to get baseline temperature data then used only 1500 stations for the last couple of decades.
  • Most of the omitted stations were at high altitudes and high latitudes that have colder temperature readings.

Statement 1 has a serious problem since several relevant pieces of evidence contradict the truth of the statement.  Earth’s temperature has not gotten dramatically warmer nor was the warming trend unique.

Statement 2:

  • A warmer climate will be disastrous for mankind.
  • A warmer climate leads to drought and other disruptive weather events.
  • The 2005 hurricane season produced more named Atlantic storms and hurricanes than ever before in recorded history.
  • 2006, 2007, and 2009 were below average for numbers of named Atlantic storms and hurricanes.
  • 2008 was slightly above average for named Atlantic storms and hurricanes but well below the numbers of 2005.
  • Plants take in carbon dioxide and produce oxygen.
  • Increased carbon dioxide levels increase plant growth and production.
  • Previous warming periods increased harvests and increased the prosperity of mankind in general.
  • Previous cooling periods decreased harvests, created famines, and decreased the prosperity of mankind in general.
  • Since mankind emerged as a species over 100,000 years ago there has not been a climate too hot or too cold (including Ice Ages) that we could not adapt to and survive.

Statement 2 has a serious problem since several relevant pieces of evidence contradict the truth of the statement.  Past experience indicates cooler climates are much more disruptive to mankind’s prosperity but not so disruptive as to critically endanger our existence.

Statement 3:

  • We suspect the warmer climate is caused by man-made pollution, especially carbon dioxide and methane, since the climate gets warmer as our pollution increases.
  • As the world has become industrialized over the last 150 years we have generated dramatically more pollution than ever before.
  • Carbon dioxide and methane are “Greenhouse Gasses” that trap heat in our atmosphere.
  • Power plants and industrial plants produce large quantities of carbon dioxide.
  • Large ranching operations have herds that produce vast amounts of methane from animal flatulence.
  • Wild animal herds who were much more abundant in the past produced methane through flatulence.
  • Carbon dioxide and methane are two very small components of the overall greenhouse gas list.
  • The largest greenhouse gas, by far, is water vapor.
  • Water vapor accounts for 95% of greenhouse gas heat retention potential.
  • Water vapor is almost entirely produced by nature (.001% of water vapor is produced by mankind).
  • Most carbon dioxide and methane contributions to the climate are from natural sources.
  • The human percentage of total atmospheric carbon dioxide is about 3% compared to 97% from natural sources.
  • The human percentage of total atmospheric methane is about 18% compared to 82% from natural sources.
  • Man-made sources of greenhouse gasses account for 0.28% of total greenhouse gasses including water vapor.
  • Natural sources of greenhouse gasses account for 99.72% of total greenhouse gasses including water vapor.
  • The climate has had cooling periods during the 1970’s and the last decade while man-made greenhouse gasses have increased.
  • Since climate temperatures fluctuate despite a steady increase in man-made greenhouse gas emissions the most likely cause for temperature change is water vapor (which we do not significantly impact).

Statement 3 has a serious problem since several relevant pieces of evidence contradict the truth of the statement.  Man-made pollution, though vast by our scale, is piddling compared to that produced by Mother Nature.  Carbon dioxide and methane are bit players on the greenhouse gas playbill.  Recent climate cooling has alternated with warming trends even though man-made pollution has steadily increased.

Statement 4:

  • Scientists can find no other readily available reason for climate warming.
  • Most scientists studying Global Warming have noticed a corresponding increase in temperature with an increase in pollution.
  • Most scientists studying Global Warming have ignored a decrease in temperature corresponding with an increase in pollution.
  • Scientists do not know what natural forces triggered previous major warming and cooling periods.
  • Predictive climate models for coming decades indicate significant temperature increases for the near and long-term.
  • Not a single near-term predictive climate model from the 1980’s onward based on the impact of man-made pollution has been even close to accurate.
  • Scientists are at a loss to explain our current decade long cooling trend.
  • Leaked e-mails from climate researches exposed suppression of evidence and tampering of the peer review process to justify Global Warming arguments.
  • The climate is constantly changing, in ways both small and large, through natural forces since before the dawn of man.

Statement 4 has a serious problem since several relevant pieces of evidence contradict the truth of the statement.  Scientists have been hapless with their predictive models as they have predicted zero climate changes accurately.  Obviously long term predictions are not based on successful short term predictions.  With so many short term predictive failures one would think that they would start looking for alternate causes of climate variation.

Conclusion:

Therefore our pollution is causing the climate to get warmer.

• Statements 1 through 4 have too many pieces of relevant information that have been omitted for this conclusion to be logical.

The Global Warming argument is not logical as demonstrated above.  In fact, evidence suggests that it is instead an emotional argument. Recent evidence of, let’s be generous and call it “mischief”, on the part of major climate researchers further erodes the argument for man-made Global Warming.  Global Warming reports are crafted to instill fear for our future prosperity, anger over environmental abuse, and disgust for mankind’s callous disregard for our planet.  An immediate call to action accompanies these alarming reports.

The action most often requested is for the government to do “something” to prevent an oncoming climatic calamity.  So, governments pay for climate research and climate research concludes that governments need to act.  This conclusion justifies increased government control over citizens.  Does this seem too cozy and self-serving to you?

The pressure from the Global Warming community is for governments to make dramatic changes immediately. Despite a mountain of evidence suggesting we don’t understand climate change near as well as we need to and that our predictive models are unreliable in the extreme, why is there a rush to make changes that will dramatically impact our prosperity?

If a batting average of .000 is not nearly enough to play professional baseball or, for that matter, indicate some success in recreational softball, why is it an acceptable level of competence in terms of predictive climate model success from the Global Warming community?  This kind of success should yield pity and comedic relief in the public arena rather than serious proof of need for legislation that allows the government to intervene in innumerable aspects of our daily lives.

To summarize let’s look at the career of one of the most influential Global Warming proponents.  Back in the 1970’s, Dr. James Hansen was an advocate for government action to help reverse the affects of climatic change.  He lobbied for government action to help warm the climate since climate temperatures were trending downward.  You read correctly, WARM the climate.  He warned that Global Cooling would have devastating affects and that immediate government intervention was needed for the protection of earth and mankind.  The government did not act immediately but the cooling trend stopped.  In the 1980’s Dr. James Hansen again called for immediate government action to reverse climate change.  Only this time it was for the Global Warming he so desperately wanted in the 1970’s.  Dr. James Hansen, of NASA no less, has one solution for every climatic trend – government action in the form of intrusive legislation.  How curious, this scientist seems to have the same remedy for opposite problems.

A more serious climatic trend is the lack of credibility of Global Warming scientists and proponents.

A LOGICAL ARGUMENT REGARDING GLOBAL WARMING

A logical argument regarding Global Warming can be made but is significantly different than the one above:

1. The earth’s climate has experienced large warming and cooling trends since mankind evolved including periods much warmer and cooler than our current climate.

2. The earth’s climate has experienced minor warming and cooling trends in the last hundred years or so.

3. A warmer climate has proved in the past to be more suitable for mankind than a cooler climate.

4. Mankind has been able to adapt to a wide variety of climates from the heat and humidity of the tropics to the sub-zero conditions of the arctic.

5. Natural forces create the vast majority of greenhouse gasses and have caused all previous climate changes.

6. Since man-made pollution is a minimal portion of overall greenhouse gas production we are most likely responsible for a minimal amount of climate change.

7. Scientists will need to understand the natural forces that caused previous climate changes before they can place recent climate changes in proper perspective.

8. Leaked information regarding researcher’s manipulation of data, suppression of dissent, rigging of the peer review process, etc. all lead to the inescapable fact that the current work of the most influential Global Warming researchers is tainted and corrupt.

9. Investigations into the “Hockey Stick” graph have proven that its methodology is substantially flawed and major publications have discredited its findings.

10. Scientists have not produced a single accurate short-term predictive climate model  based on the impact of man-made greenhouse gasses.

Logical Conclusion:

We do not have enough knowledge and understanding of the forces that impact climate therefore we should not be discussing how to allocate resources to fix a climate system that we cannot actually prove is being significantly affected by humans.

When additional investigation into the history of Global Warming research is taken into account some additional statements yield another conclusion:

1. Government funded climate research has yielded scientific corruption by researchers.

2. Media outlets have used corrupt scientific findings to increase public alarm and sell news stories.

3.  Politicians have used corrupt scientific findings to advance a control agenda.

Conclusion: Man-made Global Warming will likely go down as the single biggest scientific hoax in history.