This essay begins with a brief description of my approach to the study of argumentation and fallacies which is empirical, historical-textual, dialectical, and meta-argumentational. It then focuses on the fallacy of composition and elaborates a number of conceptual definitions and distinctions: argument of composition; fallacy of composition; arguments and fallacies of division; arguments that confuse the distributive and collective meaning of terms; arguments from a property belonging to members of a group to its belonging to the entire group; several nuanced schemes for arguments of composition; and several principles for the evaluation of such arguments. I then call attention to the fact that some scholars have claimed that the basic argument for global warming commits the fallacy of composition, and undertake a critical analysis of this claim. I show that the global-warming argument is not a fallacy of composition, but is rather a deductively valid argument of composition from the temperature of the parts to the temperature of the whole earth; moreover, I criticize the meta-argumentation of these scholars by showing that the global-warming argument is not similar to the one for global pollution, which is indeed fallacious; finally, I argue that these scholars confuse the global-warming argument with the argument claiming that all effects of global warming are harmful, which is indeed incorrect as a hasty generalization.

这篇文章首先简要描述了我研究论证和谬误的方法，这些方法是经验性的、历史文本的、辩证的和元论证的。然后着重于合成谬误，并阐述了一些概念定义和区别：合成论证；合成谬误；分裂的论点和谬误；混淆术语的分配意义和集体意义的论点；从属于一个团体成员的财产到它属于整个团体的争论；组合参数的几个细微差别方案；以及评估此类论点的几个原则。继而提请注意一些学者声称全球变暖的基本论点犯了合成谬误，并对这一说法进行批判性分析。我证明了全球变暖论证不是合成谬误，而是从部分温度到整个地球温度的演绎有效合成论证；此外，我批评这些学者的元论证，表明全球变暖的论点与全球污染的论点并不相似，这确实是错误的；最后，我认为这些学者将全球变暖的论点与声称全球变暖的所有影响都是有害的论点混淆了，这确实是不正确的仓促概括。我批评这些学者的元论证，表明全球变暖的论点与全球污染的论点不同，这确实是错误的；最后，我认为这些学者将全球变暖的论点与声称全球变暖的所有影响都是有害的论点混淆了，这确实是不正确的仓促概括。我批评这些学者的元论证，表明全球变暖的论点与全球污染的论点不同，这确实是错误的；最后，我认为这些学者将全球变暖的论点与声称全球变暖的所有影响都是有害的论点混淆了，这确实是不正确的仓促概括。