Global Warming For Idiots

So the Earth's climate is on the rise. The problem is the cause and effect attitude taken by so many. In logic, the error is called post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). What makes this error even more egregious is that we're not even talking about the climate change as an "after this."

Consider: the argument is that CO2 emissions have risen dramatically in the last 200 years and exponentially in the last hundred. During this period, there have been measured increases in the global temperature. The trend toward warming is not, however, in dispute. What's in dispute is that it has occurred "after" the increased levels of CO2, and is therefore the result of increased CO2 levels. This is how people see the global warming issue: that the climate was steady until factories and automobiles started spewing vast quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere, and that the climate has been warming ever since.

By Tuesday, even my five-year-old daughter should be able to find the flaw in this. That's when she's going to see Ice Age 2. The main conflict in this movie is the rapid warming of the Earth and the ensuing consequences. Think about it. The climate has been warming for close to 20,000 years.

Here's the problem with our CO2 (cause) and global warming (effect) scenario. 20,000 years BEFORE factories and automobiles produced mass quantities of CO2, back when "heavy industry" meant some fat guy fashioning arrowheads made out of stone, the Earth's climate warmed all on its own.

Scientists have long supported Occam's Razor when distinguishing between causes: the simplest explanation is the most likely. Now, given that the Earth's temperature has been warming for over 20.000 years and humans have been producing mass-quantities of CO2 for only 200 or so years, which is the more likely reason why temperatures today are a little bit higher than they were when they were first measured over a century ago: natural or human causation? The answer, of course, is that the most likely cause for global warming now is the same cause for global warming 20,000 years ago. When someone says that X is caused by Y, he should make sure that X came after Y. Otherwise, something else had to be the cause.

But there's something about human causation that many people like. For one, the belief in human causation will spur governments to force people to change their modes of transportation and production. Statists love this. It's a great way, actually, to convince people that the government should manage industry (if they don't, presumably, we'll all die). Environmentalists don't care if it's a lie, so long as it results in more and more regulations on industry. Viewed in this light, the present ado over global warming is a combination of ignorance and error (the whole cause and effect thing), and a conspiracy of statists and environmentalists whose arguments are so lacking in validity that they must resort to lies and scare tactics.