The Fallacies
Robert L. Bradley Jr. is an economist and CEO and founder of the Institute for Energy Research. On the website Master Resource, he wrote the linked article, “A Typical Exchange with a Climate Alarmist/Forced Energy Transformationist” which details some of the arguments he gets into on LinkedIn posts.
Several years ago, I was a LinkedIn member. At the time, the online service was used for professional networking, career development, and the posting of a professional résumé or curriculum vitae. Apparently, it has expanded – the good thing being the service seems to tolerate bilateral debate and deliberation.
Here are some of the more common fallacies along with definitions used in arguments or discussions among opposing debaters or even in general conversation:
Ad hominem – attacking the person rather than the subject of the argument;
Appeal to Authority – when someone who is assumed an authority makes an opinion or statement on the argument;
Appeal to Ignorance – when something is assumed true because it’s never been proven;
Bandwagon – when something is considered true because a lot of people believe it
Loaded Question – when a question presupposes guilt;
Non Sequitur – inference or conclusion that does not follow the evidence provided;
Red Herring – when someone intentionally introduces a new topic to throw off an opponent;
Slippery Slope – when a small step will lead to larger steps in the future; and
Straw Man – when someone ignores the main crux of an argument and replaces it with distorted or twisted versions.
There are many more fallacies, as defined in this online Wikipedia document, but those listed above are the more common types.
Taking a determined stand on an issue many feign to know something about or have a strong belief in, or simply one that goes against their intense political grain doesn’t necessarily win friends. Especially in a day where tolerance, open-mindedness, and, compromise is sorely lacking - being offended, insulted, and irritated is more often the norm.
The one fallacy that does not make the list can be defined as “it’s true because I want it to be true” – I would call it the fallacy of “wishful thinking”. In my debates with climate change advocates, this specific fallacy along with Bandwagon and Appeal to Authority is the most often used - it usually ends in some milder ad hominem attack being tossed my way.
The “Bandwagon” is essentially the argument using the analogy of “consensus”. Despite consensus being non-scientific, and as well, discredited by research and documentation on its origin, climate change supporters use it like most conservative pastors would the Bible – declaring it as infallible.
Then, on the list, arrives the “Appeal to Authority”. The first authority, despite constant discrediting, challenges, and inpugnment of reports is the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Thereafter comes all the “experts” some named, some not, by the headline-seeking legacy presses. Experts or authorities challenging climate change are either neglected or attacked through hypercritical ad hominem efforts. Disregarding opposition science, science that opposes advocate science, and the scientists that create it is the norm.
The “Appeal to Ignorance” is certainly true. The hypothesis relating to anthropogenic climate change has never been proven, yet much of the public is on board, not because of any science, but simply because their favorite politician or preferred party extols it.