View RSS Feed

Memories of the 28th Century

Some Simple Logic

Rating: 2 votes, 5.00 average.
There are a few simple tricks that one can use to supplement the check of Occamís Razor, when one is looking at an argument.

If one is trying to show causality, then remember that effects follow causes. If your presumed cause follows the presumed effect, then you can be thoroughly certain that you are mistaken in your presumption of causality.

If something happened in the past when something else did not exist, then the thing that did not exist did not cause that thing in the past. And if it did not cause it in the past, then that cause-effect relationship does not exist in the present either.

I mention these two bits of logic, because the climate change alarmists havenít bothered to apply this reasoning with respect to their theory that climate change is being caused by CO2 in the atmosphere. If one looks at graphs of temperature and CO2 levels, then one will notice that the temperature rose before the CO2 increased. This is especially true in the last fifteen years, when temperature has not increased but CO2 has increased substantially.

In the second matter, the climate change alarmists claim that CO2 from industrialization since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution that began around 1800 CE has caused climate change. The Medieval Warm Period from about 950 to 1200 CE had warmer temperatures than today, but the Industrial Revolution was still hundreds of years in the future. Obviously something other than CO2 from industrial plants caused the warming in Medieval times, and we can expect that something other than industrialization was the cause in recent times.

Simply applying logic to a question will tell you a lot about the matter, and it may tell you something about the person(s) presenting the matter.

There are free online courses in logic, if you are interested. There probably are courses in logic at some university near you, if there are any near you.

Oxford University

Logical fallacies, I like this site.

This one appears to be symbolic logic
Tags: fallacies, logic