Dear Editor,
Paul Mills’ article on climate change was well-informed, and I do not doubt his sincerity. However I found his main argument logically inconsistent.
Dismissing climate science because of inconsistencies among its adherents is like dismissing Christianity because of the failings of believers. Similarly, even if climate alarmism were a certifiable false religion, this would not mean the climate science itself is untrue. Whether people idolise something completely or follow it poorly, their actions do not determine its underlying truth. This is a clear example of the genetic fallacy.
