I am identifying garbage arguments that appear in the claims of morally contemptible anti-warming-deniers that are easily to discredit but still used. Their use indicates that those who use it have little or no concern with the potential destruction of whole cities.
They are reckless individuals who have little regard to the harm that might come to others as a result of their actions. If they were not morally contemptible individuals - if they were morally responsible individuals with a proper concern for the welfare of others - they would not allow these arguments to contaminate their claims in the debate regarding global warming.
So far I have referenced the Three Percent Argument, the Its Not The End of the World argument, and the Ice Age Fears of the 1970s Argument.
Another garbage argument found in the political arena holds that it is clearly the case that carbon dioxide levels (and global temperatures) have changed in the past. Yet, clearly, humans had nothing to do with those changes. Therefore, the argument goes, we may dismiss any claims that humans are responsible for the changes we see in the climate today.
Imagine a trial in which an individual is being accused of murder. In any murder trial, a conviction or acquittal must be based on the evidence presented in this case. However, the defense attorney makes the following argument:
"I have records here of a billion people who died, none of whom were murdered by my client. Here is a case of an individual who fell down a mine shaft to his death thirty years before my client was even born. And here I have an account of a general who was shot and killed at the Battle of Gettysburg. My client obviously did not murder him. I have the parish of a town in France that lists scores of people who were killed when black death swept through the town. My client did not murder them. With all of these deaths that were not caused by my client, clearly you must return a verdict of 'not guilty' in accusing my client of this particular murder."
This might be a great argument for befuddling the jury and confusing them into giving a bad verdict. However, it is a garbage argument. Yes, we know that there are a lot of different ways in which people can die other than by being murdered by this particular defendant. Yet, the question before the court is whether this death was brought about by the defendant in a way that constitutes murder. The video and the forensic evidence are sufficient to show that, in this case, the defendant is guilty in spite of the fact that billions of people have died of other causes.
Of course, in proving one's case one has to examine and rule out other potential causes. However, the mere fact that other potential causes exists - the mere fact that people have died that the client did not murder - the mere fact that CO2 levels have changed independent of human activity - is not proof of innocence.
The question the responsible person asks is, "Have these options been investigated and reason given to dismiss them?" The morally reckless individual asserts over and over again that humans are not the only things that cause these changes as if that is sufficient to prove that humans cannot be blamed.
Similarly, we know for a fact that there are things other than human activity that affect the global climate. However, it is morally irresponsible to claim that this fact alone is enough to prove that humans are not responsible for activities that affect the climate today and in the future. That argument depends on the evidence presented in this case.
If ever you see the Natural Climate Change argument in the claims made by a global-warming denier, think of this defense attorney using the "My Client Could Not Have Killed Everybody" argument to argue that his client should be declared innocent of murder. Where this argument appears, you have sufficient evidence to conclude that the person making it morally contemptible individual who has no qualms against contaminating public discussion with garbage arguments.
You are dealing with somebody who does not care about the possibility that he could be misleading people into behaving in ways that could lead to the destruction of whole cities. He is, quite content to spew garbage and, if it leads to the deaths of whole populations, so be it, That is not his concern.
A morally responsible person, on the other hand, will take the pains to figure out whether the arguments he is thinking of putting into his works are sound or not - whether they provide good evidence in support of his conclusion or are garbage arguments. He is as interested in avoiding garbage arguments as he is in providing good arguments. He refuses to argue recklessly when there is so much potentially at stake, just as he would refuse to drive while drunk or to point a found gun at a random stranger and pull the trigger. Concern over who might unjustly suffer as a result of his actions prevents this type of recklessness.
Accordingly, a person who commits this type of recklessness lacks the concerns that a morally responsible person would have. He is reckless, and is as contemptible and worthy of condemnation as the drunk driver or the shootist. He is, in fact, orders of magnitude worse than the drunk driver or the shootist because his intellectual recklessness shows that he is indifferent to potential harms that are orders of magnitude worse than those that the drunk driver or the shootist might inflict on others.