There is an misrepresentation of logic, or science philosophy, underlying the entire analysis of human-caused global warming. Every point of analysis starts with the premise that nature created a fixed-in-place system; and humans alter it. It's as if nature were a printed circuit board forcing electrons to follow a certain path, and the human influence is like unsoldering and replacing a component.

For example, while no one denies that humans add carbon dioxide to the air at a rate of 3%, while other sources, such as decay, add at a rate of 97%, the human addition supposedly accumulated to 30% of the total. Why didn't the other sources accumulate also, which would keep the human contribution at 3%? Implicitly, the natural sources maintain a fixed state, while the human influence does something different. It's like nature created a full bucket, and humans over-fill it.

There is no such fixed state in nature. Nature cannot tell the difference between the carbon dioxide which humans add and the carbon dioxide which decay adds. Nature is not locked into a fixed quantity which will not tolerate additions to it. There was five times as much carbon dioxide in the air during dinosaur years as now. Carbon dioxide increases and decreases with seasons and with an El Nino which heats the surface water of the Pacific Ocean.

Critics often point out that nature is highly variable and fluctuating, attempting to correct these misperceptions. But the problem is more than a dispute over quantities; it is a methodological misrepresentation being used to falsify the logic and scientific principles. It goes beyond a quantitative judgment to a methodological misrepresentation, when the quantities are so absurd that they could only occur when all natural variation is removed from the analysis.

Another example is feedback. Modelers claim that doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause a 0.6°C increase in near surface temperatures, but the result is more evaporation of water, which multiplies the temperature increase another 3-6°C. Implicit is the assumption that nature creates a fixed temperature which is thrown into aberration by humans, when they increase it by 0.6°C. A 0.6°C temperature increase caused by humans cannot be any different from a 0.6°C temperature increase caused by nature; and natural temperatures fluctuate wildly for all sorts of reasons

In other words, all of the analysis claiming humans create global warming must show that miniscule effects by humans are an aberration. If a miniscule effect is an aberration, then nature must produce less than a miniscule effect. Less than a miniscule effect means nature is locked into some fixed set of requirements, about like a printed circuit board in electronics. If it were, it would self-destruct through its natural variations.

This erroneous mind frame is an attempt to view climate change in the same way as human destruction of an ecosystem. Rain forests get destroyed by human activity; so why not climate being destroyed by human activity? The reason why not is because ecosystems are vastly different from global climate. Humans can destroy species in an ecosystem. They take something out which cannot be replaced easily. There are no species taken out of the global climate. An ecosystem is a lot like a printed circuit board; but global climate is not.

Science vs. Propaganda
Global Warming Main Page