There was a challenge that a teacher once gave the statistics class. The following are all true statements, the flaw is in the conclusion. It has been proven that there is a high statistical correlation between watermelon consumption and death by drowning and other water accidents. Scientists looked hard for an answer but could find none. Recently it came out that there is a chemical in watermelon that acts very much like Viagra and now they think that watermelon makes people more sexually active and causes them to spend less time concentrating. Which sounds like a great fit for the correlation to drowning? Maybe we should control the use of watermelon.
This would be an example of Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because (on account) of this," a logical fallacy (of the questionable-cause variety) which states, "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one."
Like global warming the only connection between watermelons and water accidents is that they both occur in the summer. Although there was a recent news story about the Viagra chemical in the watermelon, the quantities are quite small almost negligible, which is also like the so-called effect of carbon dioxide.
The big flaw with assuming that CO2 is the cause of climate change is that claimers have refused to look at any other causes for the minor increase we have had. Nor have they proven that the warming is not natural or out of the norms for a planet with a 3 billion-year history.
After multiple countries have spent more than $50 billon looking for a connection to man over the last decade, there is still no scientific proof that man could affect the climate even if he wanted to. Only God can change the heavens.
Please dissect the article and look at all the flawed statements--for example: "Bush has stubbornly refused to comply with international agreements to curb carbon emissions." The writer does not point out that the USA never agreed to agreements like Kyoto, and even the countries that have just about 99 percent have not complied either because they can't and continue to grow economically.
The author then makes an unproven, judgmental, insulting, statement to make a point that has not been proven. "The American renegade might at least commit to helping poor countries cope with the reality of climate change." They go on to say: "Recent studies reveal that global warming is happening faster than scientists had originally predicted. [Again an unproven statement with no evidence or indications what studies or what scientists.] And while the industrialized world, particularly the United States, has contributed disproportionately to global warming, it is the developing world that is bearing the brunt of the impacts." What about China and India? They are putting in more CO2 than the USA and have also refused to sign any climate agreements, because they realize that it would grossly hurt their economies. China plans to build more than one nuclear power plant a year. (see "China to build 30 nuclear plants-report.")
Then by not telling the real truth the writer mentions Malawi and Bangladesh. Even if you go to the story about Malawi it says "the largest contributor is the United States."
What is missing, like my watermelon story, is that the major factor in people starving is the corrupt socialist governments. In Bangladesh hunger is used as a weapon to kill perceived enemies. They are forced to live on the unproductive coastline by their corrupt governments.
The writer is actually doing the starving people more harm by not pointing out the corruption and bad treatment by the governments. If they highlighted the real culprits, the governments of Malawi and Bangladesh, then maybe there would be international pressure for these regimes to change. What is disgusting is that they blame President Bush for not throwing more money at the thieving socialist governments of these counties. Excuse me, but nowhere in the US Constitution it there anything that gives Congress or the President the authority to take taxpayer money and give it to communist or corrupt governments.
The writer goes on to mention that "130 developing countries have demanded that the administrator of all such funds be the United Nations." Should it not be important to mention that these countries are run by either dictators or Marxist governments? And that the UN is also corrupt? By giving the money to the World Bank and having veto power the USA at least has a voice in how our money is spent. What this writer advocates, and what anthropogenic climate change is all about is giving money to Marxist and giving up our freedoms.
Do we really want to live like the people of Cuba or Bangladesh?
San Francisco, CA
Jul 8 2008 - 2:23am