Climate Physics

The Common Alarmist Logical Fallacy

by Dr. Ed Berry

Here is an easy way to illustrate the common logical fallacy called “affirming the consequent. Consider the following logic statement:

  • If Human CO2 causes global warming
  • Then Human CO2 may cause glaciers to melt. (A implies B.)
  • Glaciers are melting.
  • Therefore, Human CO2 causes global warming. (B implies A.)

It is clear that something is wrong with the logic but what is it? Fundamentally, it is the statement that A implies B, we affirm B, the consequent, to be true then we falsely claim A is true. The truth is if A implies B does not require that B implies A. Let’s try another one:

  • If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox,
  • Then Bill Gates is rich.
  • Bill Gates is rich.
  • Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

The premise (first line) is not a truth. It is only a premise. The third line states a truth. But the conclusion (fourth line) is false because it results from an untrue premise.

About 95% of the global warming hoax is based upon this logical fallacy. The media brainwashes us with these kind of messages several times each day. The repetition starts causing us to “believe” in global warming even if the logic is false.

In order to arrive at the correct conclusion about global warming, we must clear our minds of all such logical fallacies from our reasons for “believing” in global warming. Once we do this, by the way, there are few reasons left for “believing” in global warming. We will address the remaining reasons and show them all to be false.

Let’s do one more example:

  • If Ed Berry gets big oil money,
  • Then Ed Berry will say global warming is false.
  • Ed Berry says global warming is false.
  • Therefore, Ed Berry gets big oil money.

The truth is that I have never been close enough to big oil money to even smell it. Yet, just because I wrote letters to the editor stating reasons why global warming is false, some people have written letters to the editor accusing me of being a tool of big oil.

The absurdity of these claims is revealed by looking at the funding of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, the focus of Climategate. One of its major funders was British Petroleum. Whose side is big oil on?

Not only are these people not being logical, but they are also contradicting the scientific method. The scientific method requires a hypothesis to be judged solely upon whether the hypothesis makes accurate predictions and not upon who is the Author or messenger of the hypothesis.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.