1. Identify claim 2. Argument structure 3. Inferential 4. Validity 4a. Hidden premises 5. Ambiguity 5a. Resolve ambiguity 5b.
5. Ambiguity
There is no empirical
evidence that humans are
causing global warming.
31,000 dissenting scientists
show there’s no expert
consensus on climate
change.
CO2 is not a problem
because it’s a colorless,
invisible gas.
Other scientific
consensuses have been
wrong so we can’t trust the
consensus on climate
change.
Global warming stopped in
1998.
Global warming stopped in
1998.
It’s cold outside, so global
warming isn't happening.
Glaciers around the world
are increasing, disproving
global warming.
The Greenland ice sheet is P1: The Greenland ice
thickening in the middle thus sheet is thickening in the
disproving global warming.
Antarctic sea ice is on the P1: Antarctic sea ice is
increase and casts doubt on increasing.
global warming. P2: If Antarctic warming
was happening, then
Antarctic sea ice would be
getting thinner.
C: Global warming isn't
happening.
Thermometer readings are
uncertain so we don't know
whether global warming is
happening.
Urban development is
responsible for much of
observed global warming
over the last century.
5a. Resolve ambiguity 5b. Conclusion 6. Check premises Status of claim Summary of fallacies
Intent changed
1: SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS
P1: There is no observed Deduction INVALID P1: There is no observed NONE NA NA P1 is false: slothful induction. FALSE Slothful induction: Ignores the many
evidence for AGW. Appeal to ignorance. evidence for AGW. Many lines of evidence support The argument is invalid observed climate patterns consistent with
C: Humans are not Absence of evidence P2: If there was evidence of AGW. and a premise is false. greenhouse warming, all of which add to
causing global warming. is not evidence of AGW, we would have seen it P2 is true. the evidence that humans are causing
absence, so the by now. global warming.
premise doesn't lead C: Humans are not causing
to the conclusion. global warming.
P1: A large proportion of Deduction VALID NONE NONE NA NA P1 is false: magnified minority. FALSE Fake experts: 99.9% of the signatories in
scientists dissent from 31,000 are 0.3% of the Two of the premises are the Global Warming Petition Project have
AGW. 10,000,000+ people with science false. no expertise in climate science.
P2: Scientists are experts degrees in the U.S.
in climate science. P2 is false: fake experts. The Magnified minority: While 31,000
C: There is no expert term "scientists" covers a range science graduates sounds like a lot, it is
consensus on AGW. of disciplines, many of which only 0.3% of the over 10 million people
don't include expertise in climate with science degrees in the United States.
science. 99.9% of the signatories
in the Global Warming Petition
Project have no expertise in
climate science.
P1: CO2 is invisible. Deduction INVALID P1: CO2 is invisible. NONE NA NA P1 is true. FALSE Red herring: A substance's visibility is
C: CO2 is not a problem. Just because you P2: No invisible gases can P2 is false: red herring. Whether With the added hidden irrelevant to whether it can have an
can't see something cause problems. CO2 is visible or not is irrelevant premise, the argument is impact. Substances can be invisible and
doesn't mean it's not C: CO2 is not a problem. to whether it affects climate made valid but contains a yet still harmful. E.g., carbon monoxide
a problem. change. People are also well false premise. gas is poisonous, as is radiation from
aware that there are substances radioactive substances. In fact, CO2's
or phenomena that are invisible invisibility is a key element to the
and yet harmful. E.g., carbon greenhouse effect—it lets in sunlight but
monoxide gas is poisonous, as is traps infrared heat, which causes a range
radiation from radioactive of climate impacts.
substances.
P1: Some scientific Deduction INVALID P1: Some scientific NONE NA NA P1 is true. FALSE False equivalency: While some scientific
consensuses have been Past consensuses consensuses have been P2 is false: impossible With the added hidden consensuses have been wrong in the
wrong in the past. being wrong doesn't wrong in the past. expectation. premise, the argument is past, they did not meet the three criteria
C: The scientific mean that every P2: If other consensuses P2 also commits false made valid but contains a of knowledge-based consensus:
consensus on AGW is not consensus is wrong. proved untrustworthy, then the equivalency. Not all scientific false premise. consilience of evidence, social calibration
trustworthy. consensus on AGW must be consensuses are equal. While and social diversity. Equating the
untrustworthy. past scientific consensuses have consensus on climate change to past
C: The scientific consensus on been wrong, they did not meet false consensuses is an invalid
AGW is not trustworthy. the three criteria of knowledge- comparison, as the scientific consensus
based consensus. While no on climate change meets the three criteria
scientific process is perfect, if it of knowledge-based consensus.
meets the criteria of knowledge-
based consensus, we can trust it
is true.
2: IT'S NOT HAPPENING
P1: 1998 was the hottest Deduction INVALID P1: 1998 was the hottest year NONE NA NA P1 is false: slothful induction. FALSE Slothful induction: Ignores the fact that
year on record. Comparing single on record. 2014, 2015 and 2016 were all Even with added premises 2014, 2015 and 2016 were all hotter than
C: The planet is no longer years is not a valid P2: If a future year isn't hotter than 1998. to make the argument 1998.
warming. way to make warmer than previous ones, P2 is false: impossible valid, the argument
conclusions about then warming isn’t happening. expectations. It's impossible to contains false premises. Impossible expectations: It's
long-term warming C: The planet is no longer expect a temperature record to unreasonable to expect the surface
trends. warming. show a monotonic trend during a temperature to monotonically increase
period of long-term warming. during a period of long-term global
warming, as surface temperature jumps
up and down from year to year as the
oceans exchange heat with the
atmosphere.
ALTERNATE VERSION Deduction INVALID NONE Equivocation: the term P1: The global NO P1 is false: cherry picking. Some FALSE Impossible expectations: Just because
P1: The global This argument is "statistically insignificant" temperature trend since records show statistically The argument is now it's difficult to detect a signal doesn't mean
temperature trend since invalid if the technical is taken to mean "isn't 1998 is statistically significant trends so this premise sound but the new the signal doesn't exist (like a radio signal
1998 is statistically version of the terms happening". What it insignificant. is based on selecting only premise is false (plus the with a lot of static). The surface
insignificant. are considered. actually means is either P2: If a warming trend is datasets that are statistically original first premise was temperature record is a noisy signal
C: Global warming isn't However, someone the time period is too statistically insignificant, insignificant. also false). because of internal variability so you
happening. with a loose short and/or the data is then it means the warming P2 is false: impossible expect the trend to be statistically
understanding of the too noisy, making it isn't happening. expectations. This premise significant over short time periods.
term "statistically difficult to detect a signal C: Global warming isn't assumes that if a signal cannot
insignificant" might (like trying to understand happening. be detected, then the signal does Cherry picking: Carefully selecting
view it as valid. a radio message with a lot not exist. temperature records that show
of static). So it's perfectly insignificant trends ignores other
possible for a real global temperature records that do show a
warming signal to exist significant trend. For example, satellite
but not be detected at a datasets are noisier than thermometer
statistically significant datasets so invoking satellite data while
level in noisy data or over ignoring thermometer data is cherry
a short period. picking.
P1: Some areas of the Deduction INVALID P1: Some areas of the world NONE NA NA P1 is true. FALSE Impossible expectations: Global
world are experiencing Global warming are experiencing record cold P2 is false: impossible With the added hidden warming doesn't mean that cold events
record cold temperatures. doesn't mean that temperatures expectations. The overall planet premise, the argument is never happen. Instead, it means cold
C: The Earth is not cold will never P2: If the Earth is warming, no warming does not mean every made valid but contains a events are less likely to happen over time.
warming. happen anywhere. areas can experience cooler part of the planet is warming - false premise. Global warming is like rigging the weather
weather than usual some areas can show cooling. dice, making it more likely to get hot days.
C: The earth is not warming.
P1: Some glaciers are Deduction INVALID P1: Some glaciers are NONE NA NA P1 is true. FALSE Oversimplification: Glaciers are
increasing. Premises refer to increasing. P2 is false: oversimplification. With the added hidden influenced by a number of factors,
P2: Glaciers cannot local warming P2: Glaciers cannot increase Glacier changes is based on a premise, the argument is predominantly temperature and
increase in warming conditions while the in warming conditions. number of factors such as made valid but contains precipitation. While most glaciers will
conditions. conclusion is about P3: Global warming means temperature and precipitation. It two false premises. retreat under warming conditions, some
C: Global warming isn't global warming, warming everywhere. is possible for local conditions to glaciers may even grow if precipitation
happening. hence the premise C: Global warming isn't be such that increased and local conditions are favorable.
does not lead to the happening. precipitation causes glaciers to Nevertheless. overall, glaciers across the
conclusion. grow more than warming globe are shrinking at an accelerating
temperatures cause melt. rate, threatening water supplies for
P3 is false. Impossible millions of people.
expectations. Some regions may
experience cooling or no Impossible expectations: Global
temperature change during global warming doesn't mean that every single
warming. location on the planet is warming.
Deduction INVALID P1: The Greenland ice sheet is NONE NA NA P1 is true. FALSE Oversimplification: Greenland's ice
Premises refer to thickening in the middle. P2 is false. Oversimplification. With the added hidden sheet is influenced by a number of
middle. local warming P2: If warming was happening Changes in Greenland's ice sheet premise, the argument is factors, including temperature and
P2: If warming was conditions while the in Greenland, then the s is based on a number of factors made valid but contains precipitation. Warming temperatures
happening in Greenland, conclusion is about icesheet would be getting such as temperature and two false premises. leads to more atmospheric moisture
then the icesheet would global warming, thinner. precipitation. Warming which increases precipitation, which can
be getting thinner. hence the premise P3: Global warming means temperatures leads to more lead to more snowfall, thickening the
C: Global warming isn't does not lead to the warming everywhere. atmospheric moisture which icesheet. Nevertheless, Greenland on the
happening. conclusion. C: Global warming isn't increases precipitation, which can whole is losing ice, at a rate of over 2
happening. lead to more snowfall, thickening Mount Everests worth of ice every year.
the icesheet.
P3 is false. Impossible Impossible expectations: Global
expectations. Some regions may warming doesn't mean that every single
experience cooling or no location on the planet is warming.
temperature change during global
warming.
Deduction INVALID P1: Antarctic sea ice is NONE NA NA P1 is true. FALSE Oversimplification: It's an
Premises refer to increasing. P2 is false: oversimplification. With the added hidden oversimplification to say that temperature
local warming P2: If Antarctic warming was Changes in Antarctic sea ice premise, the argument is is the only factor driving Antarctic sea ice.
conditions while the happening, then Antarctic sea depends on a number of factors. made valid but contains Changes in Antarctic sea ice depends on
conclusion is about ice would be getting thinner. For example, winds blowing from two false premises. a number of factors. For example, winds
global warming, P3: Global warming means the Antarctic continent have been blowing from the Antarctic continent have
hence the premise warming everywhere. increasing, pushing sea ice away been increasing, creating open water that
does not lead to the C: Global warming isn't from the land. This creates more essentially acts as a sea ice factory.
conclusion. happening. open water, making it easier for
more sea ice to form. Impossible expectations: Global
P3 is false. Impossible warming doesn't mean that every single
expectations. Some regions may location on the planet is warming.
experience cooling or no
temperature change during global
warming.
P1: Thermometer Deduction INVALID NONE Exploits ambiguity P1: Thermometer YES. Now off the P1 is true. FALSE Ambiguity: This argument exploits
readings support the claim Conclusion doesn't between the words readings support the claim original point. P2 is true. The argument is now ambiguity in order to equate the words
that the planet is warming. follow from premises. ‘reliable’ and ‘uncertain’. that the planet is warming. P3 is true. sound but the conclusion "unreliable" and "uncertain". Just because
P2: Thermometer Measurement uncertainty P2: Thermometer has changed. a reading has some level of uncertainly
readings contain doesn't mean the readings contain does not mean it is unreliable. It’s like
uncertainties. measurement is uncertainties. saying that because a tape measure may
C: We cannot reliably say unreliable. P3: The uncertainties in only be accurate to a few millimetres, we
that the planet is warming. thermometer can’t meaningfully say that a person has
measurements are less grown over time because we used the
than the observed tape measure to measure their height.
warming. There are a number of techniques used to
C: We can reliably say determine reliability of temperature
that the planet is warming. record. These have established that
measurement errors are much smaller
than the warming that we see.
P1: Urban areas are Deduction INVALID P1: Urban areas are hotter NONE NA NA P1 is true. FALSE Misrepresentation: Assumes that
hotter than rural areas. Just because urban than rural areas. P2 is true. With the added hidden scientists haven't examined the impact of
P2: Thermometer heat might affect P2: Thermometer P3 is false: misrepresentation. premise, the argument is urban heat. In reality, scientists filter out
measurements from urban thermometer measurements from urban Scientists have examined the made valid but contains any contaminating influences by
areas are contaminated measurements areas are contaminated with impact of urban heat. They filter it two false premises. comparing urban measurements with
with urban heat. doesn't mean it has a urban heat. out any contaminating influences nearby rural measurements. In fact, urban
C: Global temperature significant effect on P3: Urban contamination is not by comparing urban heat has had minimal effect on the
record is contaminated by the global record. dealt with by scientists. measurements with nearby rural climate record, with much warming
urban development. C: Global temperature record measurements.. happening where there is little urban
is contaminated by urban development.
development.
1. Identify claim 2. Argument structure
Intent
They changed name from P1: If AGW was real, then Deduction
‘global warming’ to ‘climate they wouldn't have
change’ because global needed to change the
warming isn't real. name from "global
warming" to "climate
change".
P2: They did change the
name.
C: AGW isn't real.
Human CO2 emissions are P1: Human CO2 Deduction
tiny compared to natural emissions are small
CO2 emissions so our compared to natural CO2
influence is negligible. emissions.
C: Nature has more
influence on atmospheric
CO2 levels than humans.
Volcanoes produce more P1: Volcanoes emit more Deduction
CO2 than humans. CO2 than humans.
C: Volcanoes have a
larger influence on climate
change than humans.
CO2 has a residence time P1: CO2 only has a Deduction
of only 4 years so CO2 residence time of 4 years
levels would fall quickly if before its absorbed by
we stopped emitting. nature.
C: If we stopped emitting
CO2, it would be
absorbed by nature
quickly.
Greenhouse effect violates P1: The atmosphere is Deduction
the 2nd law of cooler than the Earth's
thermodynamics. surface.
P2: Thermodynamics
says that heat can only
flow from hot to cold.
C: The greenhouse effect
violates thermodynamics.
The greenhouse effect is P1: Each CO2 molecule Deduction
saturated so adding more added contributes less
CO2 won't affect it. greenhouse effect than
the previous one.
C: Adding more CO2 to
the atmosphere won't add
any additional warming.
Atmospheric CO2 lagged P1: If CO2 causes global Deduction
behind temperature warming, then CO2
changes in the past, so variations should precede
rising CO2 can't be the temperature variations.
cause of rising P2: CO2 lags temperature
temperatures. in the past.
C: CO2 cannot be the
cause of global warming.
One fingerprint of human- P1: Climate models Deduction
caused global warming is predict human-caused
the tropospheric hot spot global warming should
which hasn't been observed, cause a tropospheric hot
thus disproving human- spot.
caused global warming. P2: A hot spot hasn't been
observed.
C: Humans aren't causing
global warming.
CO2 is a trace gas so it’s P1: Carbon dioxide is a Deduction
warming effect is minimal. trace gas
C: The presence of
carbon dioxide in trace*
amounts in the
atmosphere is not
responsible for warming
the earth.
* Trace amounts in
analytical chemistry are
those less than 100 ppm.
While C02 levels are
higher than this, we can
use the term more
colloquially for the
purposes of this exercise.
The sun is causing currently P1: The Sun is the main Deduction
observed climate change on source of energy in our
Earth. climate.
P2: If the Sun radiates
more energy, the Earth
warms.
P3: Solar activity is
increasing.
C: The Sun is causing
global warming.
The Earth’s climate has P1: The climate can Deduction
changed before, so humans change through natural
are not responsible for processes.
current climate change. P2: The climate is
currently changing.
C: The climate is
currently changing
through natural
processes.
Human activity is not P1: Climate can change Deduction
necessary to explain climate through natural
change. processes.
P2: Human activity can
cause climate change.
P3: The climate is
currently changing.
C: Human activity is not
necessary to explain
current climate change.
3. Inferential 4. Validity 4a. Hidden premises 5. Ambiguity 5a. Resolve ambiguity 5b. Conclusion 6. Check premises Status of claim Summary of fallacies
changed
VALID NONE NONE NA NA P1 is false: oversimplification. It is FALSE Misrepresentation: The term
appropriate to use the term The argument is valid but climate change has been used for
"climate change" when global contains two false decades. The IPCC, founded in
warming is real, as global premises.
warming is a subset of climate
1988, stands for Intergovernmental
change. Panel on Climate Change.
P2 is false: misrepresentation. Incidentally, it was a contrarian
The term climate change has Frank Luntz, looking to cast doubt
been used for decades. The on climate change, that first
IPCC, founded in 1988, stands for recommended switching from
Intergovernmental Panel on "global warming" to "climate
Climate Change.
change".
Oversimplification: It is appropriate
to use both the terms "climate
change" and "global warming" during
a period of global warming, as global
warming is a subset of climate
change.
3: IT'S NOT US
VALID NONE Over-simplifies the carbon P1: Human CO2 YES. Now off the P1 is true. FALSE Oversimplification: By considering only
If we take the text at cycle and what is meant emissions are small original point. P2 is true. The argument is now natural CO2 emissions and ignoring
face value and by natural CO2 emissions compared to natural CO2 sound but the conclusion natural CO2 sinks, this argument
assume that nature is by considering only emissions. has changed. oversimplifies the carbon cycle. CO2
adding more CO2 to natural CO2 emissions P2: Net natural emissions sinks roughly match CO2 emissions so
the atmosphere than and ignoring natural CO2 are close to zero when net natural CO2 emissions is close to
humans. sinks. CO2 sinks roughly natural absorptions are zero. For thousands of years, our
match CO2 emissions so taken into account. atmosphere has been in balance.
net natural CO2 C: Human CO2 emissions Humans have upset the balance.
emissions is close to zero. are the main influence on
atmospheric CO2 levels.
VALID NONE NONE NA NA P1 is false: misrepresentation. FALSE Misrepresentation: It is false to say
Humans emit over 100 times The argument is valid but volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans,
more CO2 than volcanoes. contains a false premise. given that humans emit over 100 times
more CO2 than volcanoes.
INVALID P1: CO2 only has a residence NONE NA NA P1 is true. FALSE Oversimplification: CO2 molecules cycle
How quickly a CO2 time of 4 years before its P2 is false: oversimplification. The argument is made continuously through the atmosphere, so
molecule moves absorbed by nature. CO2 molecules cycle valid with an extra it is false to say that natural sinks
around the climate P2: When a natural sink continuously through the premise but the premise is sequester CO2 molecules permanently.
system is different to absorbs CO2 molecules, it atmosphere. false. How quickly a CO2 molecule moves
how long it takes CO2 sequesters it from the around the climate system (i.e., residence
levels to return back atmosphere permanently. time) is different to how long it takes CO2
to normal. Therefore C: If we stopped emitting CO2, levels to return back to normal. If we
the premise doesn't it would be absorbed by nature stopped emitting CO2, it would take
lead to the quickly. thousands of years for the atmosphere to
conclusion. return to pre-industrial levels.
INVALID NONE Ambiguous about what is P1: The atmosphere is YES. Now off the P1 is true. FALSE Ambiguity: This argument is ambiguous
2nd law of meant by "heat flow". With cooler than the Earth's original point. P2 is true. The argument is now about what is meant by "heat flow". With
thermodynamics talks the greenhouse effect, the surface. P3 is true. sound but the conclusion the greenhouse effect, the *net* heat flow
about net flow of net heat flow is still from P2: Thermodynamics has changed. is from the surface to the atmosphere,
energy and doesn't the surface to the says that heat can only consistent with the 2nd law of
forbid some flow from atmosphere. But the heat flow from hot to cold. thermodynamics. But greenhouse gases
cool to hot. flow is less than it P3: With the greenhouse slow down the cooling of the Earth as it
would've been without the effect, the *net* flow of loses heat to space. The Earth still loses
greenhouse effect. So heat is from the Earth to heat but less than if there were no
essentially, the the atmosphere. greenhouse gases.
greenhouse effect slows C: The greenhouse effect
the cooling of the Earth to is consistent with
space. thermodynamics.
INVALID NONE Oversimplification: doesn't P1: Each CO2 molecule YES. Now off the P1 is true. FALSE Oversimplification: Arguing that the
While the greenhouse clarify that saturation added to a single layer of original point. P2 is true. The argument is now greenhouse effect is saturated in a single
effect might be applies to a single layer air contributes less sound but the conclusion layer oversimplifies the fact that
saturated for a single rather than the whole greenhouse effect than has changed. atmosphere which is made up of multiple
layer, the atmosphere atmosphere. Need to add the previous one. layers. Layers higher up in the
is made up of multiple language to clarify the P2: Layers high up in the atmosphere are less saturated than lower
layers. So the difference. atmosphere are less layers. Consequently, emitting more CO2
conclusion about the saturated than low layers. means more heat is being trapped high
whole atmosphere C: Adding more CO2 to up in the atmosphere where the air is
doesn't follow from the atmosphere means thinner.
the premise about a more heat trapped higher
single layer. in the atmosphere.
VALID NONE NONE NA NA P1 is false: false dichotomy. FALSE False dichotomy: While it is true that
While it is true that CO2 causes The argument is valid but CO2 causes global warming, that doesn't
global warming, that doesn't contains a false premise. mean global warming might not also lead
mean global warming might not to increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Just
also lead to increased CO2 in the because a chicken comes from an egg
atmosphere. Moreover, increases doesn't mean eggs don't come from
in global temperatures can lead to chickens—both are true. Similarly, CO2
the release of large amounts of causes warming and warming causes
CO2, which then exacerbates the more CO2. The two combined comprise a
process. The relationship reinforcing feedback.
between to two is therefore not so
simple. Slothful induction: While CO2 lags
P2 is false: slothful induction. temperature in the Antarctic ice core
While it is true in the Antarctic ice record, that is not the case in Greenland
core record that CO2 lags ice cores or tropical ocean sediment
temperature, it is not the case in cores. Consequently, it's false to say that
Greenland ice cores or tropical CO2 always lags temperature. It's a
ocean sediment cores. regional phenomena restricted to
Consequently, it's false to say Antarctica.
that CO2 always lags
temperature. It's a regional
phenomena restricted to
Antarctica.
VALID NONE This argument contains a P1: Climate models YES. Now off the P1 is true. FALSE Ambiguity: Contains a verbal trick by
verbal trick - a hot spot predict global warming original point and P2 is true. The argument is now conflating "global warming" with "human-
should appear for any should cause a no longer relevant P3 is true. sound but the conclusion caused global warming" in order to cast
type of surface warming tropospheric hot spot. to the question of has changed. doubt on humanity's role in causing global
so is not linked uniquely to P2: Surface warming has human-caused warming. A hot spot should appear for
greenhouse warming. been observed. global warming. any type of surface warming so is not
P3: Satellite/radiosonde linked uniquely to greenhouse warming.
measurements have had
trouble finding a
tropospheric hot spot.
C: Either model
predictions or
measurements are
uncertain.
INVALID P1: Carbon dioxide is a trace NONE NA NA P1 is true (noting the earlier FALSE Red herring: The fact that CO2 is a trace
Trace amounts of a gas [It is possible to analyse caveat). The argument is made gas is irrelevant to whether it can impact
substance can have P2: Trace amounts of a this argument by claiming P2 is false: red herring. The valid with an extra climate. Trace amounts of substances
an effect–the substance can have no effect that the word ‘trace’ is "trace" aspect of CO2 is irrelevant premise but the premise is can have a strong effect – lethal doses of
conclusion doesn't C: The presence of carbon used with equivocation, to whether it can impact climate. false. hydrogen cyanide are of lower dosage
follow from the dioxide in trace amounts in the but the treatment given Lethal doses of hydrogen cyanide than atmospheric CO2. We know CO2
premise. atmosphere is not responsible here is sufficient to are of slightly lower ppm than causes warming because satellites
for warming the earth. overcome that issue] atmospheric CO2. measure its warming effect—the
increased greenhouse effect is an
observed reality.
VALID NONE NONE NA NA P1 is true. FALSE Slothful induction: Ignores the fact that
P2 is true. The argument is valid but the Sun has been getting colder for the
P3 is false: slothful induction. The contains a false premise. last 30 years as the Earth has been
Sun has been getting colder for warming. Sun and climate are moving in
the last 30 years as the Earth has opposite directions. Further confirming
been warming. our understanding is the fact that
changing patterns in the yearly and daily
cycle confirm human-caused global
warming, while ruling out the sun.
4: PAST & FUTURE CLIMATE CHANGE
INVALID P1: The climate can change NONE NA NA P1 is true. FALSE Single cause: Assumes only natural
Conclusion doesn't through natural processes. P2 is true. The argument is made processes cause climate change. Just
follow from premise - P2: The climate is currently P3 is false: single cause. valid with an extra because nature drove climate change in
just because nature changing. Assumes only natural causes premise but the premise is the past doesn't mean it must always be
caused climate P3: Human activity cannot drive climate change. false. the driver. We are confident that human
change in the past cause climate change. activity is driving current climate change
doesn't mean it has to C: The climate is currently because human fingerprints are observed
be causing it now. changing through natural all over our climate system.
processes.
VALID NONE Equivocation: the term P1: Climate can change YES. Now off the P1 is true. FALSE Equivocation: The term “climate change”
“climate change” is used through natural processes original point. P2 is true. The argument is now is used in two different ways, to represent
here to cover a variety of P2: Human activity can P3 is true. sound but the conclusion both slow climate change in the past and
meanings. The change cause climate change P4 is true. has changed. rapid modern climate change. The rate of
referred to in P1 and P3 P3: The climate is modern climate change is unprecedented,
do not have the same currently changing at a being much faster than natural climate
meaning, since the rate of much more rapid rate than change in the Earth's past. Therefore
change is different in in the past equating the two is misleading.
each. This syntax makes P4: Natural processes
the argument seem valid, occurring at the moment
but it is not. cannot explain the current
rate of climate change
C: The Earth is not
warming through natural
processes
1. Identify claim
Current warming is just the
continuation of natural
recovery from the Little Ice
Age.
CO2 was higher in the past
but the world didn't boil
away so the greenhouse
effect is weak.
The Medieval Warm Period
was warmer than current
conditions. This implies
recent warming is not
unusual and must be
natural.
Models are imperfect and
therefore unreliable.
Models predictions have
failed, making them
unreliable.
Scientists can’t even predict
weather.
In the 1970s, climate
scientists were predicting an erroneously predicted an
ice age.
We're heading into another
ice age because of the
cooling sun.
The IPCC is alarmist.
Water vapor is the strongest P1: Water vapor
greenhouse gas. contributes more
greenhouse warming than
CO2.
C: Water vapor is a
stronger driver of climate
change than CO2.
Clouds provide negative
feedback.
Species can adapt to
climate change.
Polar bear numbers have
increased so they're in no
danger from global
warming.
Ocean acidification isn’t
serious.
Global warming is good.
CO2 is not a pollutant.
2. Argument structure
Intent
P1: It warmed naturally
from the Little Ice Age to
the start of the industrial
period.
P2: It's warmed over the
industrial period.
C: Warming over the
industrial period is natural.
P1: CO2 was higher in the Deduction
Earth's deep past.
P2: The Earth didn't
experience runaway
greenhouse warming
during these periods.
C: The greenhouse effect
is weak.
P1: The Medieval Warm Deduction
Period was as warm or
warmer than now.
P2: Climate change
during Medieval times
was natural.
P3: It's warm now.
C: The climate is
currently changing
through natural
processes.
P1: Models are not perfect Deduction
representations of climate.
C: Models are unreliable.
P1: Model predictions Deduction
have been wrong.
C: Models are unreliable.
P1: Weathercasters get Deduction
weather predictions
wrong.
C: Climate predictions are
unreliable.
P1: Climate scientists Deduction
ice age in the 1970s.
C: Current climate science
is unreliable.
P1: Solar activity is near Deduction
Maunder Minimum levels.
P2: During the Maunder
Minimum, there was a
little ice age.
C: We're heading into
another ice age.
P1: There are examples Deduction
where the IPCC has
overestimated climate
impacts.
C: The IPCC is alarmist.
Deduction
P1: Warming leads to Deduction
more water vapor.
P2: More water vapor
leads to more clouds.
P3: Clouds have a cooling
effect.
C: Clouds provide
negative feedback.
P1: Species have Deduction
adaptive abilities.
C: Species can adapt to
climate change.
P1: Some polar bear Deduction
populations have
increased in number.
C: Polar bears are not
threatened by global
warming.
P1: Oceans are not Deduction
acidific.
C: Ocean acidification is
not serious.
P1: Some regions will Deduction
benefit from global
warming.
C: Global warming is
good.
P1: CO2 is a naturally Deduction
occuring substance.
P2: Natural substances
cannot be a pollutant.
C: CO2 is not a pollutant.
3. Inferential 4. Validity 4a. Hidden premises 5. Ambiguity 5a. Resolve ambiguity 5b. Conclusion 6. Check premises Status of claim Summary of fallacies
changed
Deduction INVALID P1: It warmed naturally from NONE NA NA P1 is true. FALSE Single cause: Assumes only natural
Conclusion doesn't the Little Ice Age to the start of P2 is true. The argument is made processes cause climate change. Just
follow from premise - the industrial period. P3 is false. valid with an extra because nature caused the end of the
just because nature P2: It's warmed over the premise but the premise is Little Ice Age doesn't mean it must always
caused climate industrial period. false. be the driver. Natural influences that
change in the past P3: Human activity cannot ended the Little Ice Age have been
doesn't mean it has to cause climate change swamped by recent human activity.
be causing it now. C: Warming over the industrial
period is natural.
INVALID P1: CO2 was higher in the NONE NA NA P1 is true. FALSE Single cause: Assumes that if CO2 was
At the same time that Earth's deep past. P2 is false: single cause, slothful The argument is made a climate driver, then no other climate
CO2 was very high, P2: No other climate driver induction. The sun was cooler valid with an extra drivers exist that would offset CO2's
solar activity was offset the stronger greenhouse when CO2 was higher. premise but the premise is warming influence. In the past when CO2
much lower. In fact, warming. P3 is true. false. was much higher, the sun was much
the two roughly P3: The Earth didn't cooler. The two roughly balanced each
balance each other experience runaway other. We are now raising CO2 levels with
out. So the greenhouse warming during a warmer sun.
conclusion doesn't these periods.
follow from the C: The greenhouse effect is Slothful induction: Overlooks the fact
premises because its weak. that the sun was cooler in the Earth's
missing an important deep past when CO2 was higher.
premise.
INVALID P1: The Medieval Warm NONE NA NA P1 is false. Slothful induction, FALSE Slothful induction: Ignores full body of
Conclusion doesn't Period was warm. ignores full body of evidence that The argument is made evidence that finds that while some
follow from premise - P2: Climate change during finds that while some regions valid with an extra regions were warm comparable to now,
just because nature Medieval times was natural. were comparably warm to now, premise but the premise is many other regions were cooler and
caused climate P3: It's warm now. many other regions were cooler false. overall, the globe was cooler than current
change in Medieval P4: Human activity cannot and overall, the globe was cooler conditions.
times doesn't mean it cause climate change. than current conditions.
has to be causing it C: The climate is currently P2 is true Single cause: Assumes only natural
now. changing through natural P3 is true processes cause climate change. Just
processes. P3 is false. Single cause: because nature influenced climate in
Assumes only natural processes medieval times doesn't mean it must
cause climate change. Just always be the driver.
because nature influenced
climate in medieval times doesn't
mean it must always be the
driver.
INVALID P1: Models are not perfect NONE NA NA P1 is true, although there is a hint FALSE Impossible expectations: By definition,
Non sequitur: representations of climate of slothful induction in that it The argument is made no model is perfect as they are simplified
mistakes made have P2: Models should be perfect ignores all the correct valid with an extra representations of reality. Therefore,
no bearing on the to be reliable. interpretations that models have premise but the premise is expecting models to be perfect are an
broader results from C: Models are unreliable. made. false. impossible expectation that can never be
models which are P2 is false. Impossible met. Models are useful tools based on
based on expectations. no model is perfect fundamental physical principles that can
fundamental physics. but they are useful tools that can reproduce the past and provide insights
In addition our reproduce the past and provide into the future.
understanding is insights into the future.
based on empirical
evidence also.
INVALID P1: Model predictions have NONE NA NA P1 is true. FALSE Impossible expectations: No model can
Just because been wrong. P2 is false. Impossible The argument is made ever make completely perfect predictions.
something isn't P2: Models should be perfect expectations: climate models valid with an extra Nevertheless, climate models have had
perfect doesn't mean to be reliable. have had great success at premise but the premise is great success at predicting long-term
it's not reliable. C: Models are unreliable. predicting long-term effects like false. effects such as greenhouse warming.
greenhouse warming.
INVALID NONE Ambiguity. This claim P1: Weathercasters get YES. Now off the P1 is true. FALSE Ambiguity: This claim conflates weather
Weather and climate conflates weather and weather predictions original point. P2 is true. The argument is now and climate, which is weather averaged
are different things so climate, which is weather wrong. P3 is true. sound but the conclusion over time and space. The success of
one doesn't lead to averaged over time and P2: Weather is chaotic has changed. short-term predictions have little
the other. space. and hard to predict. relevance to long-term climate
P3: Climate, which is predictions.
weather over time, is
more stable and
predictable.
C: The success of
weather predictions has
no bearing on the
reliability of climate
predictions.
INVALID P1: Climate scientists NONE NA NA P1 is false: misrepresentation. FALSE Misrepresentation: This argument
The state of science erroneously predicted an ice P2 is false: impossible The argument is made misrepresents the state of scientific
in the 1970s does not age in the 1970s. expectations. valid with an extra understanding of climate in the 1970s.
necessarily have P2: Climate science needs to P3 is false. premise but the premise is Scientific papers overwhelmingly
implications for the be perfect in the 1970s in in false. concluded that warming due to increasing
state of science now. order for us to trust it now. greenhouse gases was imminent.
C: Current climate science is
unreliable. Impossible expectations: Demanding
that science in the 1970s has to be
perfect in order for us to trust science now
is an impossible expectation.
INVALID P1: Solar activity is near NONE NA NA P1 is true. FALSE Single cause: Assumes solar variations
Assumes there are no Maunder Minimum levels. P2 is true. The argument is made are the main driver of climate change and
other forcings that P2: During the Maunder P3 is false: single cause. valid with an extra that greenhouse warming is negligible in
would prevent ice Minimum, there was a little ice premise but the premise is comparison. In reality, the influence of
age. age. false. solar variations is tiny compared to the
P3: Greenhouse gases don't strong warming effect from rising
have much warming effect. greenhouse gases. Even if the sun fell to
C: We're heading into another Maunder Minimum levels, it would only
ice age. delay global warming by a decade.
INVALID P1: There are examples where NONE NA NA P1 is true. FALSE Cherry picking: Selectively looks at a
Ignores the greater the IPCC has overestimated P2 is false: cherry picking. The argument is made few examples where the IPCC
number of cases climate impacts. Selectively focuses on a few valid with an extra overestimated climate change, ignoring
where IPCC P2: The IPCC overestimates examples where the IPCC premise but the premise is the much larger number of examples
underestimates more than underestimates overestimated climate change, false. where the IPCC underestimate climate
climate impacts. climate impacts. ignoring the much larger number impacts. The IPCC is 20 times more likely
C: The IPCC is alarmist. of examples of underestimation. to underestimate rather than exagerate
climate impacts.
5: IT'S NOT BAD
INVALID P1: Water vapor contributes NONE NA NA P1 is true. FALSE Misrepresentation: This argument
While water vapor more greenhouse warming P2 is false: misrepresentation. The argument is made misrepresents the behavior of water vapor
has a stronger than CO2. Water vapor doesn't drive climate valid with an extra in the atmosphere. Water vapor doesn't
greenhouse effect, it P2: Water vapor is a driver of change: climate change drives premise but the premise is drive climate change: climate change
doesn't drive climate - climate change rather than a water vapor. The amount of vapor false. drives water vapor. The amount of vapor
rather climate drives feedback. in the air depends on air in the air depends on air temperature.
it. The amount of C: Water vapor is a stronger temperature. Warming causes water vapor to rise,
water vapor in the air driver of climate change than which causes further warming: a
depends on CO2. reinforcing feedback. The fact that water
temperature. vapor is a strong greenhouse gas means
Warming causes it amplifies the warming from greenhouse
water vapor to rise, gases.
which causes further
warming: a
reinforcing feedback.
VALID NONE NONE NA NA P1 is true. FALSE Oversimplification: Arguing that clouds
P2 is true. The argument is valid but only cool is an oversimplification as
P3 is false. Oversimplification: contains a false premise. different types of clouds behave
acting as if clouds only have a differently. High-level clouds warm while
cooling effect ignores that they low-level clouds cool. Consequently, any
can also warm. reinforcing feedback from clouds isn't
strong and they play a minor role in
climate sensitivity.
INVALID P1: Species have adaptive NONE NA NA P1 is true. FALSE Misrepresentation: Assumes that climate
Just because species abilities. P2 is false: misrepresentation. The argument is made change is gradual when it is actually
can adapt to some P2: Climate change is gradual Mass extinctions happen when valid with an extra changing much faster than usual natural
climate change enough that species have time climate changes too fast for premise but the premise is climate change, and faster than species
doesn’t mean they to adapt. species to adapt. Currently false. can adapt to. Mass extinctions happen
can adjust to the C: Species can adapt to species are going extinct at when climate changes too fast for species
rapid climate change climate change. similar rates to past mass to adapt. Currently species are going
happening now. extinctions. extinct at similar rates to past mass
extinctions.
INVALID P1: Some polar bear NONE NA NA P1 is true. FALSE Oversimplification: There are a variety
Just because some populations have increased in P2 is false and an The argument is made of factors influencing polar bear
populations have number. oversimplification. There are a valid with an extra populations. One threat (hunting) has
increased doesn't P2: If global warming variety of factors influencing polar premise but the premise is been removed but replaced with an
mean they're not threatened polar bears, all bear populations. One threat false. increasing threat (melting sea ice). Polar
threatened by climate populations would decrease. (hunting) has been removed but bears need sea ice to hunt so the
change. C: Polar bears are not replaced with an increasing threat shrinking of Arctic sea ice is endangering
threatened by global warming. (melting sea ice). their populations.
INVALID P1: Oceans are not acidific. NONE NA NA P1 is true. FALSE Red herring: Focusing on whether pH is
Seriousness of P2: Ocean conditions are not P2 is false and a red herring. The argument is made above 7 or not is a distraction. Ocean
acidification is not the harmful to organisms so long Ocean acidity has increased 30% valid with an extra acidity has increased 30% and poses
absolute value of the as the pH level is greater than and poses serious threats to coral premise but the premise is serious threats to coral reefs that are also
ocean's acidity but neutral. reefs that are also threatened by false. threatened by warming oceans and
the change from the C: Ocean acidification is not warming oceans and bleaching. bleaching. Species have evolved under
current level that serious. What's important is not whether conditions of pH around 8.1 and changing
species have evolved pH is above 7 or not, it's that pH changes the conditions required for
with to a different species have evolved under carbonate lifeforms to calcify.
level. conditions of pH around 8.1 and
changing pH changes the
conditions required for carbonate
lifeforms to calcify.
INVALID P1: Some regions will benefit NONE NA NA {1 is true. FALSE Cherry picking: Focuses on a few good
Just because there from global warming. P2 is false and cherry picking: The argument is made impacts of global warming and ignoring
are a few cases P2: When you add up all this focuses on a few good valid with an extra the overwhelming number of bad impacts.
where global warming negatives and positives, the impacts of global warming and premise but the premise is Climate change is having negative
is good doesn't mean net effect of global warming is ignoring the overwhelming false. impacts on all parts of society.
that it's overall good. good. number of bad impacts.
C: Global warming is good.
VALID NONE This is a red herring: P1: CO2 is a naturally NA P1 is true. FALSE Red herring: Quibbling over technical
quibbling over technical occuring substance. P2 is true. The argument is now definitions of pollutant is a distraction from
definitions of pollutant is a P2: A pollutant is any P3 is true. sound but the conclusion the realities of the negative impacts of
distraction from the substance that disrupts has changed). global warming. A pollutant is any
realities of the negative the environment. substance that disrupts the environment -
impacts of global P3: Greenhouse warming CO2 does that by trapping heat.
warming. disrupts the climate.
C: CO2 is a pollutant.
1. Identify claim 2. Argument structure 3. Inferential 4. Validity 4a. Hidden premises 5. Ambiguity 5a. Resolve ambiguity 5b. Conclusion 6. Check premises Status of claim Summary of fallacies
Intent changed
CO2 is plant food. P1: Plants need CO2 to Deduction INVALID P1: Plants need CO2 to grow. NONE NA NA P1 is true. FALSE Slothful induction: Ignores the ways that
grow. Fails to take into P2: Greenhouse warming has P2 is false and slothful induction. The argument is made climate change impacts agriculture
C: CO2 is good for plants. account negative no negative impacts on plants. CO2 fertilisation is just one factor valid with an extra through increased heat stress and
impacts of global C: CO2 is good for plants. affecting plant growth. Climate premise but the premise is flooding. CO2 fertilisation is just one
warming on plant change impacts agriculture false. factor affecting plant growth. The full
growth. through increased heat stress picture shows that negative impacts
and flooding. The full picture outweigh benefits.
shows that negative impacts
outweigh benefits.
Extreme weather not linked P1: Extreme weather Deduction INVALID P1: Extreme weather NONE NA NA P1 is true. FALSE Misrepresentation: Assumes that global
to global warming. happened before recent Just because extreme happened before recent global P2 is true. The argument is made warming cannot affect extreme weather
global warming. weather was natural warming. P3 is false: misrepresentation. valid with an extra when in reality, the risk from extreme
P2: Extreme weather is in the past doesn't P2: Extreme weather is premise but the premise is weather is increasing, with some forms of
happening now. mean it has to be happening now. false. extreme weather more confidently linked
C: Current extreme now. P3: Global warming cannot to global warming than others.
weather is not driven by affect extreme weather.
global warming. C: Current extreme weather is
not driven by global warming.