Originally Posted by xyzdonna  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 |
Thank you Donna
I agree with you. Using what scientific data we have...both corrupted and uncorrupted...establishes that we DO NOT know for fact that humans have caused global warming. That is a hypothesis, not even a theory. What we do know for FACT is that the planet has undergone periods of heating and cooling prior to mankinds arrival, let alone as a dominant species. We also know that burning hydrocarbons releases CO2 into the atmosphere. We have not established that the rising amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is a recent phenomenon or a reoccuring condition. We haven't tried to establish if it is caused by a single event or a series of events that have been in motion prior to the industrial age. What egotistical creatures we are to believe that trees only make sound when we are there to hear them fall, and that the Earth gets warmer because we burn gasoline. Cause and effect...there are so many variables that it will be damn near impossible to accurately determine if we are THE problem, ONE of the problems, a contributing factor, or simply a new phenomenon to a cyclical event.