The rules of logic and climate change

Mr. Heil (Daily Bee, Aug. 17, 2019) rightly states that, when two experts disagree, it is impossible to tell which one is correct based on their credentials alone.

However, the question of anthropogenic global warming is not a matter of two experts in disagreement. At least 95 percent of the thousands of practicing climate scientists agree that AGW is a reality based on an abundance of consistent evidence. If people disregard this consensus in determining whether or not AGW is occurring, they are committing the “inflation of conflict “ fallacy. That fallacy occurs when people cite a few cherry-picked authorities to support their position while ignoring the vast majority of qualified experts who disagree with them. No matter what fringe position one adopts, it is usually possible to find someone with advanced training who supports it. See: (“The Rules of Logic Part 6: Appealing to Authority vs. Deferring to Experts”)

If people believe the sun revolves around the Earth, they can cite Dr. Gerardus Bouw who has a Ph.D. in astronomy from Case Western Reserve University. Bouw’s geocentrism stems from his fundamentalist religious beliefs. Similarly, Dr. Roy Spencer can be cited as an authority who claims humans cannot significantly influence global warming. Again, his contrarian viewpoint is dictated by uncompromising religious convictions. Advanced education doesn’t automatically confer immunity against ideological biases. Fortunately, peer review can help weed them out.

No one is prevented from trying to disprove AGW. Because of the preponderance of confirmatory evidence, the probability of anyone succeeding is extremely low.

JACK DeBAUN

Sandpoint