Implications of our findings for those advocating changes based on global warming forecasts: Are global warmers harming their own case?
By J. Scott Armstrong
Our findings that there are no scientific forecasts to support global warming does not mean that all of the proposals by the global warming community are fallacious. But it does illustrate the dangers of using global warming as the reason for change, as is done for example, by Al Gore.
The lack of a scientific basis for global warming forecasts might be detrimental to global warmers who advocate change. People are likely to falsely assume that because the premise is false (i.e., no scientific forecasts support global warming), the proposed policy changes are also false. Consider the flowing faulty logic: “If there is global warming, higher gasoline taxes are needed. There is no global warming. Therefore there is no need for higher gasoline taxes.” The case for changes in gasoline taxes should be based on its own merits.
A more sensible approach would be to make forecasts about the costs and benefits of each public policy proposal.