Global Warming - Recognizing Bad Arguments

The purpose of this site is to expose the worthless arguments claiming that people are hurting the Earth. Don't get me wrong, when there is scientific data, I want to hear it, regardless of which position it supports. (All data is useful.) However, in my opinion, any program or article that uses these types of arguments (and they are frequently used) is suspect.

"Most scientist agree"

This is the most often used argument in the public press, but they never reference a study to prove it. When you try to find a study, the actual number of climate scientists that believe that humans are causing Global Warming is only about 15% - in other words, all of them. (Give me a break.)

This started out as

Well, that got a lot of scientists, including many that are experts in the field, to stand up and disagree. Now, it's been softened to as in this first sentence from a Washington Post front page article

So, in my opinion, as soon as you see a line like this, you know that the article is highly biased and you should not expect any useful data.

Remember, in science, facts are never decided by a vote - only experiments and data collection decide facts.

"It is well known that"

"It is well known that ..." is one of the lamest arguments there is. It is easy to provide hundreds of examples where Well Known "facts" were later proved to be false, such as Remember, in science, it does not matter how "well known" something is, only experiments and observed data decide facts.

Yet, Global Warming articles and videos are full of this crap.

On the other hand, perhaps these claims indicate that Global Warming is more religion than science (after all, most religious beliefs are also well known).

Not Enough Years of Temperature Data

Most articles claiming anthropogenic Global Warming use temperature charts to support their argument ... but it really bothers me that they show only about 20 years of data - just those years that show a continuous increase.

There are many graphs showing average temperatures over the past 500 million years ... but those are probably not relevant.

The current climate cycle (the Ice Ages - plural) started over one million years ago. Each glaciation (ice age) lasted for about 100 to 125 thousand years. Between these cold periods were warm periods of about 10 thousand years (and it is currently about 10 thousand years since the beginning of the current warming period).

Thus, in order to see what the real patterns are, you must examine at least 3 of these cold/warm cycles - about 450 thousand years.

However, I am willing to cut the writers some slack ... as long as they show enough data so that the audience knows that the climate is normally variable. I have selected a minimum period of 1,000 years since that covers a major cooling known as The Little Ice Age. (Actually, there are many temperature charts covering this period ... and they do not agree.)

At any rate, I claim that any reports that present graphs of temperature data that covers a period of less than 1,000 years should be considered worthless simply because they are trying to lie to the audience by omitting data that does not support their position.

By the way, the first link above shows that the Earth is in a 500 million year cooling trend and that, if humans don't do something very significant to warm up the planet, the Earth may soon be too cold to support life ... maybe, that's why the Global Warming crowd don't want you to see that data.

Bad Graphs

I see this all the time - but it took me a while to catch it.

The report shows ice core (or some other) data that has been smoothed with a moving filter. Then, at one end of the graph, raw data is added. Then this graph is used as "proof" that the Earth is heating more rapidly than at any time in history.

Let me be clear, these "scientists" (NOT) are mixing averaged data with actual data, not saying so, and then drawing conclusions.

This is nothing but fraud.

To be specific

As a result, if you apply the same moving averages to the current data that was applied to the rest of the data on the graph, you can't even see the "significant" increase. That is why I claim that using graphs of this type is simply fraud.

As a specific example, NOVA provides 4 graphs.

Thus, even though the data may be good, the graphs, in fact, lie because you can not combine apples and oranges and make lemons.

The Boogie Man Card

This is the argument that bothers me the most Basically, this says To me, this is simply the plea of a politician asking for your vote. It is also a warning to grab your wallet ...

These are some additional examples

So, the boogie man card is another indicator that the "Science Report" is just another bogus political ad.

Author: Robert Clemenzi
URL: http:// / Global_Warming / Bad_Arguments.html