F
fnr
Guest
In ChurchMilitant.tv’s piece, “Global Warming Unmasked: The Hidden Agenda,” the host, Michael Voris concludes that global warming is essentially a conspiracy put forward by to advance three agendas. I have heard quite a few other Catholics make similar allegations, so I think it’s useful to critically evaluate the overall argument.
Other parts of the documentary included portrayals of the science behind global warming as flawed and biased.
I would like to point out the logical fallacy in this argument. Imagine three logical statements.
Statement 1: “If A, then D” (represented as A → D).
Statement 2: “If B, then D” (represented as B → D).
Statement 3: “If C, then D” (represented by C → D).
Let A be: “someone is promoting population control.”
Let B be: “someone is promoting global government cooperation.”
Let C be: “someone is promoting Earth worship”
Let D be: “they promote global warming as a major problem that needs to be fixed.”
If the above statements are true, logically, the contrapositives of these statements are also true.
not(D) → not(A): “If someone does not promote global warming as a major problem, then they do not promote population control.”
not(D) → not(B) - parallel construction as above.
not(D) → not(C) - parallel construction as above.
While the contrapositive of a true statement is always true, the converse (i.e., D → A) and inverse (i.e., not(A) → not(D)) are not.
Assuming that Statements 1, 2, and 3 are correct, the only thing we can say about the members of D, that is all people who promote global warming as a major problem, are that there are some people in D who promote A (population control), some people in D who promote B (global government cooperation), and some people in D who promote C (earth worship). There are no statement that can be made about all members of D, that is, all people who promote global warming as a major problem. Unless we prove the statement “A+B+C=D”, we can say nothing about the extent to which D consists of A, B, and C promoters. We don’t know anything AT ALL about the population E represented by this expression: “E = D-A-B-C”.
What is E? E consists of people who promote global warming as a major problem, who do not promote population control, global government cooperation, or earth worship. E could consist of people who believe in global warming for any number of reasons: research, informed citizenship, economic interest (e.g., manufacturers of solar cells), insanity, crowd-following, or any number of other reasons.
E could be 99% of D. E could be 1% of D. There is absolutely nothing in the ChurchMilitant.tv investigation that tells us whether the vast majority of people that promote global warming as a major problem do so on the basis of following what appears to be the opinions held by the majority of scientists.
The full transcript of the documentary can be found here: churchmilitant.tv/scripts/ciax-2010-08-25.pdf
Other parts of the documentary included portrayals of the science behind global warming as flawed and biased.
I would like to point out the logical fallacy in this argument. Imagine three logical statements.
Statement 1: “If A, then D” (represented as A → D).
Statement 2: “If B, then D” (represented as B → D).
Statement 3: “If C, then D” (represented by C → D).
Let A be: “someone is promoting population control.”
Let B be: “someone is promoting global government cooperation.”
Let C be: “someone is promoting Earth worship”
Let D be: “they promote global warming as a major problem that needs to be fixed.”
If the above statements are true, logically, the contrapositives of these statements are also true.
not(D) → not(A): “If someone does not promote global warming as a major problem, then they do not promote population control.”
not(D) → not(B) - parallel construction as above.
not(D) → not(C) - parallel construction as above.
While the contrapositive of a true statement is always true, the converse (i.e., D → A) and inverse (i.e., not(A) → not(D)) are not.
Assuming that Statements 1, 2, and 3 are correct, the only thing we can say about the members of D, that is all people who promote global warming as a major problem, are that there are some people in D who promote A (population control), some people in D who promote B (global government cooperation), and some people in D who promote C (earth worship). There are no statement that can be made about all members of D, that is, all people who promote global warming as a major problem. Unless we prove the statement “A+B+C=D”, we can say nothing about the extent to which D consists of A, B, and C promoters. We don’t know anything AT ALL about the population E represented by this expression: “E = D-A-B-C”.
What is E? E consists of people who promote global warming as a major problem, who do not promote population control, global government cooperation, or earth worship. E could consist of people who believe in global warming for any number of reasons: research, informed citizenship, economic interest (e.g., manufacturers of solar cells), insanity, crowd-following, or any number of other reasons.
E could be 99% of D. E could be 1% of D. There is absolutely nothing in the ChurchMilitant.tv investigation that tells us whether the vast majority of people that promote global warming as a major problem do so on the basis of following what appears to be the opinions held by the majority of scientists.
