Originally Posted by WYLD  Wouldn't the fact that there were prior periods of global heating and cooling, set precedent to establish that "GW" and "CC" are real...and also at the same time, wouldn't that fact be enough to establish that humans, regardless of their industrial proclivities and "greenhouse gas" contributions, are not responsible for the current climate change? Or is that the same kind of circular logic the neo-greenies employ? |
Ever heard of the post hoc fallacy? It's considered the greatest (or at least most overused) fallacy in logic. Post hoc ergo proctor hoc, Latin for after this therefore because of this. Extensively employed by preachers, politicians, conservative talk show hosts, and other unsavory characters. Whether or not climate change is the result of human activity doesn't depend on the order of occurrence of events. You have to use science to evaluate this, not circuitous logic.
Donna