Climate Change, Logical Considerations

 

Climate Change, Logical Considerations

When I try to study the pro's and con's of the climate change problem, I would like to see a scientific analysis of the various factors that affect energy exchange between the earth and the extraterrestrial sources and sinks of energy. However, I find instead a repetitive stream of arguments, nearly all of which reflect little knowledge of the basic scientific processes or of the fundamentals of logic. I want to point out some of the more glaring violations of logic; but I do realize that violating a law of logic does not prove that an argument is not valid. It just calls into question its validity.

The first example is that often stated argument for anthropomorphic global warming is that “a consensus of climate scientists agree”. I have a multitude of problems with this statement. Having been educated, trained, and experienced in the kind of basic math and science that actually has to work in real world engineering situations, I am shocked by the idea that anyone who is a real world scientist would ever consider participating in such a poll, because to do so would imply a belief that scientific fact can be voted into being. And such a totally unscientific belief immediately destroys one's credibility as a real scientist. It is an example of a common logical fallacy: believing an argument is true simply because lots of people think it’s true (Argumentum ad Populum).

Of course, it would be nice if problems could be solved by casting a vote. The science of atmospheric physics and energy exchange that affect temperatures and plant and animal life is a complex science that involves a multitude of disciplines, including biology, chemistry, physics, and mathematics: especially statistics. The only valid way of attacking the problem is to develop an understanding of these disciplines and then, with that background, undertake an objective, unbiased study of the energy exchange processes that govern the temperature variations – not seeking validation of an existing belief, but humbly asking nature to reveal her truths.

Of course, this argument can be easily dismissed simply by saying, “That's just his opinion; we all agree that he's a denier”. This is an example of an ad hominem fallacy:
attacking the person instead of the argument. The goal is to discredit the argument by discrediting the person advocating the argument.

To predict future temperature and ocean levels by extrapolating the data of a few decades is historically and notoriously fallacious. I can't think of a single disaster prediction that proved accurate. We did not run out of oil by the year 2000, or by the year 2010. In fact, with new oil discoveries and new technology for extracting oil from the earth, the available supply is probably greater than it has ever been. We have not suffered a “nuclear winter” despite many volcano eruptions, forest fires, and the oil field fires ordered by Saddam Hussein. In order to predict the future, one would have to know, at present, the entire future history of everything that could affect the predicted event – assuming that he knows what those factors are.

Furthermore, the temperature data that purportedly demonstrates that warming has occurred over many decades has been been subjected to adjustment to eliminate the actual cooling that took place in the 60's and 70's. This data tampering has been documented in several Real Climate Science articles listed in my post on “Climate Change, Data”. The past three or four decades is far to short a time period on which to base world-shattering decisions, even if one does trust the data. This tampering yields a version of the “false premise” fallacy.

More recently, temperature data has been subjected to selecting data by omitting the data from certain stations, or by pretending to take them into account by “averaging” data. In view of the speed of modern computers, it is unlikely that any significant time would be lost by including all of the data. But one can always achieve the experimental results that he desires by “cherry picking” - selecting the data that support his agenda. That neat trick also works with measurements of ice area, ice depth, ocean depth, etc. But cherry picking is a well-known and standard logical fallacy.

Support for the view that CO2 is a greenhouse gas responsible for atmospheric heating is provided by a statistical correlation between rising temperature levels and increasing CO2 levels at certain measuring stations. This is another common fallacy – a kind of “correlation implies causation” argument that when CO2 levels rise temperatures rise, it follows that the temperature rise was caused by the CO2 rise. This fallacy is exposed early on in basic statistics textbooks. The possibility exists that one of these variables is causing the other, but it is highly unlikely. For example, if I look out the window of my condo and see only the top sections of two ships anchored in the bay, I observe that, as the day progresses, they both rise and then gradually subside in unison. Should I conclude that the motion of one of these ships is causing the corresponding motion of the other? The idea seems ridiculous, but I might actually be tempted to believe it if I know nothing of tides, and if someone has told me that there is something special about one of these ships that endows it with an influence on other ships. Rather than jump to the conclusion that there is a causative action if two variables correlate, one should naturally seek for a fundamental variable that is governing the variation of the two – in this case, the tides. But in the case of the temperature and CO2 variation, it is the urbanization, including the structural changes in the vicinities of airports, where many of the measurements are taken. At one time urbanization was not even considered as a temperature factor, later it was dismissed as a minor factor, but when the data became suspect it was taken more seriously, and now apparently some effort is being made to obtain a more accurate evaluation of its effect.

The same problem exists with regard to measurements of other variables, such as ice thickness. The data depends on where the measurements are taken, whether they are adjusted, and how they are interpreted. For example, the view that the arctic ice thickness is much is much thinner at present than it was a few decades ago, is certainly not uniformly true, because in 1958 the submarine USS Skate was able to surface in nine locations under Arctic ice, and in 1959, it was able to surface at the exact North Pole. Such experiences tell us that the locations of thin ice vary considerably over short time periods. These variations should be difficult to follow in taking the measurements. But one can support any conclusion simply by cherry-picking the data.

The most common argument for accepting the climate change dogma is that “A consensus of scientists agree to it”. This is a prime example of the fallacy of
concluding an argument is true simply because lots of people think it’s true. Support for the consensus view is provided by numerous “peer reviewed” publications. That is not surprising. Is it likely that anyone whose standing rests on his adherence to the accepted view would be likely to submit an article that disagrees with it? Or, is it likely that the editors of a journal that wants to uphold its standing in that closed community would even accept such an article for review? They would simply dismiss it as “not up to our standards”. It is easy to establish a consensus simply by squeezing out the competition.

There are other fallacies in the climate change controversy, but I will mention only one more: the appeal to emotion, especially fear. One sure way to acquire attention is to instill panic in the public. It's one thing to note that something may be of concern and deserves a careful study. But it's a lot more effective to scream, “We have to do something right now, before it's too late to save ourselves!” My fear is that this headlong rush into an erroneous but fashionable craze is rapidly resulting in a dogma that vilifies, satirizes, and ostracizes its challengers. Lee Smolin (in The Trouble With Physics) has reported on this phenomenon among string theory enthusiasts who dominated the university physics departments, physics journals, and the popular celebrity science media to the extent that nearly all proposed dissertations and journal articles were rejected unless they adhered to the string theory dogma. I can visualize agencies applying enormous resources to doing all of the wrong things, while continually screaming, “It's not working because we're not doing enough!”.

Return to table of contents for this label:

Table of Contents for Science Label (augustmarsblog.blogspot.com)