Logic Rant

This isn't about intentionality so much as frustration with other peoples seeming lack of it. When I hear arguments about just about any topic invariably both sides are talking past each other. And while disagreements certainly exist in the world I think a lot of people don't disagree with each other as much as they think they do. And most of them don't know what they are actually disagreeing about.

Let me give you an example. Global warming or "climate change" is obviously a big and important topic that has a very large amount of disagreement. It is important that we get it right too, because if we do nothing and it is real we will have serious problems. If it is not real and we hobble ourselves economically trying to combat it that is obviously not good either.

I have read a lot about it and I am very frustrated by a lot of the arguments. Here are a few that have particularly annoyed me and why:

1. "99% of scientists agree that global warming is real" - This is the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. So even if it is true it is a bad argument. I find the statistic rather suspicious, and also there is historical precedent for "99% of scientists" to be very wrong about something.
2. "The polar ice coverage has dropped XX% (or any other news item) so global warming is real and we need to pass sweeping legal reform to stop it" - If I had to pick a fallacy for this it would be the false cause fallacy. However, it is more an issue of a very large pile of assumptions. Is global warming a real thing? Is it caused by man-made factors? Can we do anything about it? Can any single country make big enough changes to change anything? Was the specific issue sited caused by global warming? Is the data sited true? I have seen this many times and while they aren't necessarily wrong, they leave big enough logic holes to drive an electric semi-truck through. ;)
3. Statements along the lines of this one by Richard Dawkins: "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." - This is an ad hominem attack and is one of the most frequent arguments I see. "You are stupid to think this is wrong" or the genetic fallacy of "the oil companies funded that study, you are just in the pocket of big business".

What I don't see is a reasoned framework around which people can agree over which would allow them to see where they disagree and avoid missing each other with piles of poor arguments.

Here is my basic framework for a global warming debate:

1. What is global warming?
2. What is causing it?
3. What will happen?
1. Are the models accurate?
2. Is that a bad thing?
3. Do we care?
4. When will it happen?
1. Are the models accurate?
5. Can it be stopped?
1. If so how?
6. Can it be reversed?
1. If so how?
7. Is the cost of stopping or reversing it worth it given what will happen?
8. Is the cost of doing nothing greater than the cost of adapting?

Each of these items is related, but must be argued independently. Given the scale of the potential problem and given the amount of power and money connected to the answer to these questions I don't know how to judge the efficacy of research produced by both sides.

I am writing all this from the standpoint of uncertainty. I do not have a "side" on this issue. I want to take care of the earth and be a good steward of it. However, I do not want to needlessly squander economic flexibility unnecessarily. We need to get it right and honestly to this point I have heard so many bad arguments from both sides that I am genuinely unable to draw what I would consider an informed decision. I have heard certain pieces of the above framework argued well, but not all the way through. I don't know what to think.

I wish more people would take the time to think through the whole chain of thought for their arguments and build a logical framework so that at the very least both sides could come to an understanding of exactly where their disagreements are. Then we would know where we need to focus our discussion.