Affirming the consequent is a logical fallacy, committed by reasoning in the form:

If P, then Q.

Q.

Therefore, P.

Arguments of this form are invalid (except when the argument also instantiates some other valid form). Informally, this means that arguments of this form do not give good reason to establish their conclusions, even if their premises are true. The name affirming the consequent derives from the term for the “then” clause of a conditional claim.

One way to demonstrate the invalidity of this argument form is with a counterexample with true premises but an obviously false conclusion. For example:

If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.

Bill Gates is rich.

Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

That argument is obviously bad, but arguments of the same form can sometimes seem superficially convincing, as in the following example:

If I have the flu, then I have a sore throat.

I have a sore throat.

Therefore, I have the flu.

But of course many illnesses cause sore throat, such as the common cold or strep throat. Thus this argument is weak at best.

your Great Argument also has issues with post hoc ergo propter hoc. the hilarious thing is,

many superstitious beliefs and magical thinking arise from this fallacy.

so your post hoc problem is no surprise given the cultist zeal with which your “humans cause global warming” camp operates.

see also regression fallacy and cum hoc ergo propter hoc

Temp goes up, 800 years later CO2 goes up. Now what happens if the CO2 goes up to unprecedented levels PRECEDING a temperature increase. Great argument for man made levels of CO2 (as opposed to Volcanic eruptions).

here is that statement mathematically:

2 + 2 = 4. Now what happens if 4 + 4 = 2. This is a Great Argument that fours cause twos!

much like al gore’s ‘an inconvenient truth,’ that ‘great argument’ is a completely baseless concoction.

After subsequent comment on both and waiting for discrediting comments, I have to distrust the Swindle Video. Everything is doctored and controlled to promote their point of view. The biggest item was the 800 year lag on the the CO2 levels. Rather convincing. But if you think about it. Temp goes up, 800 years later CO2 goes up. Now what happens if the CO2 goes up to unprecedented levels PRECEDING a temperature increase. Great argument for man made levels of CO2 (as opposed to Volcanic eruptions). If you research, you will find much reputable discreditation to the Channel 4 effort. Do not take Swindle Video as gospel becausse you find it to be a “Convenient Truth”.

this documentary is imperfect

…. and you would describe al gore’s documentary as ____________ (fill in the blank, keeping in mind your request that this discussion be “nuanced, mature and honest”).

thanks in advance!

I’m not sure what your end-game is.

Do you want me to “admit” that the documentary is imperfect?

Of course it is!

I never claimed it was perfect. That was you projecting.

If I did, it was only because I thought your comment logically followed from mine. Now I see it was actually completely non-responsive (I was questioning the editing ethics of the documentary makers, while you were delving off into the contribution of Wunsch outside of the documentary.)

I find it troubling that you think this misrepresentation is “irrelevant.” It places in doubt the validity of the documentary as an honest critique of its opposition. I thought that a valid point after all the comments here praising the film as “impressive” and “excellent.”

You’ve misunderstood what I wrote.

What I’m saying is that his comments (taken out of context in the documentary) are irrelevant. Looking beyond the documentary, the contribution he brings is that he puts a damper on the alarmism of global warming.

Except that the documentary uses Wunsch’s expertise to imply that human influence must not be very important in global warming, “diametrically opposite to the point” he was making. You should reread the specific example he cited where he believes he was misrepresented. (You should also learn when to concede a point).

In short, the documentary attempts to carefully highlight Wunsch’s criticism of the “cataclysmic alarmism” of the more extreme global warming “advocates,” without mentioning the inconvenient truth that Wunsch does in fact believe that global warming is primarily human-driven and quite threatening. In fact the filmmaker implies just the opposite about Wunsch’s views.

For more problems with the documentary check out these links:

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.php

http://inthegreen.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/deconstructing_.html

P.S. Doug, you can still believe that Gore is wrong, that global warming is bogus AND that this documentary is imperfect (or even downright rubbish). It’s a bit more nuanced, mature and honest approach to debate and discussion, but I’m confident you’re up to the task.