Caleb, you’re just reusing the fallacy (line drawing). Let’s replace your argument with the heap one. Does a collection of pebbles become a heap after 10 pebbles, 5, or 1? Come on, which is it…? Tell me, or there are no such things as heaps. But you can’t tell me, can you… so there are no such things as heaps? Of course there are.

The essence of the fallacy is that just because we cannot quantify the EXACT POINT at which a more complex phenomenon emerges, does not mean we can reject the existence of the phenomenon that emerges (even if it’s vague).

This doesn’t mean that the human contribution to climate change cannot be quantified; it just can’t be quantified in that way (illogically), which is precisely what Carlson tried to do in the interview.

To argue against global warming, you have to argue against the climate models which are used to APPROXIMATE the level of human activity that is contributing to climate change. You actually have to contend with the models, the science.

Also, who said anything about turning our lives inside out? My argument only targets the occurrence of human caused global warming, not what we should or should not do about it.

Professor of Philosophy at Southwestern College, CA | Contributor to @andphilosophy | Blues Guitar Finger-Picker

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store