Today, William Brigss has an interesting guest post:
Our post today is provided by Terry Oldberg, M.S.E., M.S.E.E., P.E. Engineer-Scientist, Citizen of the U.S. That’s a lot of letters, Terry! Oldberg joined our Spot the Fallacy Contest, which had been laying fallow. He says he found multiple instances of equivocation in global warming arguments. What say you?
Summary and Introduction
No statistical population underlies the models by which climatologists project the amount, if any, of global warming from greenhouse gas emissions we’ll have to endure in the future. This absence of a statistical population has dire consequences. They include:
- The inability of the models to provide policy makers with information about the outcomes from their policy decisions,
- The insusceptibility of the models to being statistically validated and,
- The inability of the government to control the climate through regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.
Rather than describe global warming climatology warts and all, the government obscures its unsavory features through repeated applications of a deceptive argument. Philosophers call this argument the equivocation fallacy.
Continue reading here: http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7923