Logical Fallacies and the Abuse of Climate Science: Fire, Water, and Ice

Good policy without good science and analysis is unlikely. Good policy with bad science is even more unlikely. Unfortunately, there is a long history of abuse or misuse of science in fields with ideological, religious, or economically controversial policy implications, such as planetary physics during the time of Galileo, the evolution debate, or climate change. Common to these controversies are what are known as "logical fallacies" -- patterns of reasoning that are always -- or at least commonly -- wrong due to a flaw in the structure of the argument that renders the argument invalid. All scientists should understand the nature of logical fallacies in order to (1) avoid making mistakes and reaching unsupported conclusion, (2) help them understand and refute the flaws in arguments made by others, and (3) aid in communicating science to the public. This talk will present a series of logical fallacies often made in the climate science debate, including "arguments from ignorance," "arguments from error," "arguments from misinterpretation," and "cherry picking." Specific examples will be presented in the area of temperature analysis, water resources, and ice dynamics, with a focus on selective use or misuse of data.; "Argument from Error" - an amusing example of a logical fallacy.