Special to the Daily Courier, January 5, 2015, in the article “Taming the global-warming debate”poses the question…”Will this be the year intellectuals finally help heal toxic climate-change
For example, he describes an error called ‘affirming the consequent’. It works like this: ‘If my theory is true, then a logical consequence of that theory is that X should turn green. X does turn green. Therefore my theory is true. This is a deductive logical fallacy. Something unrelated to your theory could have caused X to turn green.
When activists claim rising CO2 levels occurring concurrently with rising temperature proves the theory of CO2-induced global warming, scientists should explain that they are committing the consequent
The consequent fallacy may also be explained another
way.Postulates are statements that assume the truth of an underlying fact that have not been independently confirmed or proven, i.e., Increases in atmospheric CO2 precede, and
therefore, parallel increases in temperature (unsubstantiated).
The hypothesis implicit in IPCC writings are that dangerous global warming is resulting from human related
greenhouse gas emissions. In considering any such hypothesis a null hypothesis must be considered which is the simplest hypothesis consistent with the known facts. Regarding global warming, the null hypothesis is that currently observed changes in global climate indices are the result of natural variability. To invalidate the null hypothesis
requires direct evidence of human causation of specified changes that lie outside usual, natural variability. Otherwise and until such evidence is established, the null hypothesis (a postulation) is assumed to be correct.