{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02407566638005159, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008598452278589854, 'mean_word_length': 5.0, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Systematic and Logical Problems in Global Warming Science

Arguments put forth in favor of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are frequently lacking in objectivity due to the use of imprecise terms and unwarranted extrapolations. A salient characteristic of such arguments is, moreover, the seemingly arbitrary attribution of causes to certain phenomena [Singer, 2012a]. As a result, such arguments run counter to the reasoning that is a hallmark of the scientific method. The purpose of this paper is to reason about some of those erroneous arguments in order to better inform people about pitfalls from a misuse of the scientific method in arguments about AGW. In a time when many scientists, scientific organizations, and educators have apparently been compromising their honesty and their integrity [Ball 2014a], S. Fred Singer stands out: As a rallying point for those who haven't compromised, as a trusted source seeking the truth, and as a beacon for those who seek moral support to carry on the grand tradition of science. It is my pleasure to dedicate this essay to Fred (a scientist for all seasons), with gratitude and admiration, on his 90th birthday.