My point is to make fun of people who fall prey to a common logical fallacy. It's so common, there's even a funny name for it: "It's cold today in Wagga Wagga." It's not a formal logical fallacy; it's basically misunderstanding the definition of "global warming" in the first place, and therefore being unable to argue the point intelligently. If we have to categorize it, then, it would be "strawman" in the same sense that creationists don't know what evolution is, so they refute a bunch of stuff that isn't evolution, instead.
Having a heat wave for a short time in a very small geographical area does not mean "global warming" is happening, because "global warming" doesn't care what the temperature is in any one place at any one time.
Similarly, having a cold snap for a short time in a very small geographical area does not mean "global warming" is disproved, because "global warming" doesn't care what the temperature is in any one place at any one time.
Global warming deniers are inconsistent hypocrites in acknowledging these two sides of the same coin. They'll loudly trumpet cold weather (thus proclaiming their adherence to the religion of "being cold today in Wagga Wagga"), but become verrrrry, very silent when warm weather happens. It's a very clear pronouncement of their "confirmation bias" (another logical fallacy on top of the strawman).
In fact we know from completely different but mutually confirming methods of measurement that the average temperature of the earth has increased over the past three decades, but that doesn't excuse all the bad science, shameless political pandering, and us-vs-them religious nonsense that permeates the discussion. We should still be open to discussion of causes and what to do about it (if anything), but to base such discussions on scientific data rather than religious dogma that gives such comfort to common logical fallacies. Until we're willing to get rid of these stupid biases and fallacies from our thinking, we simply can't be taken seriously when we try to discuss slightly-more-complicated issues, like what's caused the warming that we have experienced.
My point is to make fun of people who fall prey to a common logical fallacy. It's so common, there's even a funny name for it: "It's cold today in Wagga Wagga." It's not a formal logical fallacy; it's basically misunderstanding the definition of "global warming" in the first place, and therefore being unable to argue the point intelligently. If we have to categorize it, then, it would be "strawman" in the same sense that creationists don't know what evolution is, so they refute a bunch of stuff that isn't evolution, instead.
Having a heat wave for a short time in a very small geographical area does not mean "global warming" is happening, because "global warming" doesn't care what the temperature is in any one place at any one time.
Similarly, having a cold snap for a short time in a very small geographical area does not mean "global warming" is disproved, because "global warming" doesn't care what the temperature is in any one place at any one time.
Global warming deniers are inconsistent hypocrites in acknowledging these two sides of the same coin. They'll loudly trumpet cold weather (thus proclaiming their adherence to the religion of "being cold today in Wagga Wagga"), but become verrrrry, very silent when warm weather happens. It's a very clear pronouncement of their "confirmation bias" (another logical fallacy on top of the strawman).
In fact we know from completely different but mutually confirming methods of measurement that the average temperature of the earth has increased over the past three decades, but that doesn't excuse all the bad science, shameless political pandering, and us-vs-them religious nonsense that permeates the discussion. We should still be open to discussion of causes and what to do about it (if anything), but to base such discussions on scientific data rather than religious dogma that gives such comfort to common logical fallacies. Until we're willing to get rid of these stupid biases and fallacies from our thinking, we simply can't be taken seriously when we try to discuss slightly-more-complicated issues, like what's caused the warming that we have experienced.
Reply
Leave a comment