The Correlation = Causation Fallacy of Climate Alarmists

[PoS]

The most common reason why gullible people believe we are in a climate crisis is this: "The CO2 levels have gone up, and so has the average temp, so they must be related!"

But in the end this is a very silly assumption, since using that same logic (or lack of it), you get these ridiculous correlations as well:

Since the number of pirate attacks have steadily decreased, warming temp has also increased, so it must mean that if there are less pirates, then there would be more global warming!

By that same logic, there have been higher cases of autism due to the rise in purchases of organic food stuff. So does that mean organic foods causes autism?

And I'm calling it right now: the climate nuts will respond with the following fallacies: appeal to authority, appeal to emotion, ad homs, and shoot the messenger ones. the one thing they are is predictable.

 

[Praxas]

The most common reason why gullible people believe we are in a climate crisis is this: "The CO2 levels have gone up, and so has the average temp, so they must be related!"

But in the end this is a very silly assumption, since using that same logic (or lack of it), you get these ridiculous correlations as well:

Since the number of pirate attacks have steadily decreased, warming temp has also increased, so it must mean that if there are less pirates, then there would be more global warming!

By that same logic, there have been higher cases of autism due to the rise in purchases of organic food stuff. So does that mean organic foods causes autism?

And I'm calling it right now: the climate nuts will respond with the following fallacies: appeal to authority, appeal to emotion, ad homs, and shoot the messenger ones. the one thing they are is predictable.

Since you yourself have applied those same fallacies to the science presented in support of climate change, you have only succeeded in projecting your own fallacies onto others in regards to climate change.

 

[Mr Person]

This is like watching a third grader imitate his theoretical physicist father by digging out his old quantum mechanics textbooks and scrawling out some complete gibberish, then proudly presenting it.

"Look, dad, I made math!"

PoS doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. Not even the slightest. It really is a delicious way of watching him accidentally admit that he does not have a hope of beginning to understand what actually is in the peer reviewed papers on AGW that he has never - nor could have - read, let alone understood.

He actually believes that he understands that correlation does not prove causation, but trained scientists who have devoted their careers to studying AGW don't. Talk about derpy hubris.

 

[longview]

This is like watching a third grader imitate his theoretical physicist father by digging out his old quantum mechanics textbooks and scrawling out some complete gibberish, then proudly presenting it.

"Look, dad, I made math!"

PoS doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. Not even the slightest. It really is a delicious way of watching him accidentally admit that he does not have a hope of beginning to understand what actually is in the peer reviewed papers on AGW that he has never - nor could have - read, let alone understood.

He actually believes that he understands that correlation does not prove causation, but trained scientists who have devoted their careers to studying AGW don't. Talk about derpy hubris.

Actually he is demonstrating a know fact in statistics,
"Correlation does not imply causation"!
Correlation does not imply causation - Wikipedia

In statistics, the phrase "correlation does not imply causation" refers to the inability to legitimately deduce a cause-and-effect relationship
between two variables solely on the basis of an observed association or correlation between them

Simply because something appears to be correlated, does not make the two events connected.
That said, it is very likely that the increases in CO2 is causing some warming, but the amount of the observed warming attributed
to the increased CO2 is a scientific unknown.

 

[PoS]

Since you yourself have applied those same fallacies to the science presented in support of climate change, you have only succeeded in projecting your own fallacies onto others in regards to climate change.

LOL these fallacies are an illustration of the bad logic that alarmists cling to.

He actually believes that he understands that correlation does not prove causation, but trained scientists who have devoted their careers to studying AGW don't. Talk about derpy hubris.

As I predicted, Mr P goes to the old "appeal to authority fallacy" even though the "authority" has so far not provided any proof. Herp derp. :lol:

 

[Praxas]

LOL these fallacies are an illustration of the bad logic that alarmists cling to.

No, they are your projections from your actions in regards to support of climate change. As usual, you are complaining about fallacies when you, yourself, are using them. Thank you for demonstrating that perfectly and proving me right once again.

 

[OlNate]

The most common reason why gullible people believe we are in a climate crisis is this: "The CO2 levels have gone up, and so has the average temp, so they must be related!"

But in the end this is a very silly assumption, since using that same logic (or lack of it), you get these ridiculous correlations as well:

Since the number of pirate attacks have steadily decreased, warming temp has also increased, so it must mean that if there are less pirates, then there would be more global warming!

By that same logic, there have been higher cases of autism due to the rise in purchases of organic food stuff. So does that mean organic foods causes autism?

And I'm calling it right now: the climate nuts will respond with the following fallacies: appeal to authority, appeal to emotion, ad homs, and shoot the messenger ones. the one thing they are is predictable.

How about an appeal for actual facts that disprove the assertion, rather than unrelated graphs that say nothing about the issue?

This is basically saying that the sky isn't blue because the grass isn't peanut butter. There's really nothing to debate here.

 

[vegas giants]

The most common reason why gullible people believe we are in a climate crisis is this: "The CO2 levels have gone up, and so has the average temp, so they must be related!"

But in the end this is a very silly assumption, since using that same logic (or lack of it), you get these ridiculous correlations as well:

Since the number of pirate attacks have steadily decreased, warming temp has also increased, so it must mean that if there are less pirates, then there would be more global warming!

By that same logic, there have been higher cases of autism due to the rise in purchases of organic food stuff. So does that mean organic foods causes autism?

And I'm calling it right now: the climate nuts will respond with the following fallacies: appeal to authority, appeal to emotion, ad homs, and shoot the messenger ones. the one thing they are is predictable.

My god I hope they appeal to authority by an actual scientist

 

[vegas giants]

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

 

[Mr Person]

Herp derp.

All you're ever good for.

 

[longview]

How about an appeal for actual facts that disprove the assertion, rather than unrelated graphs that say nothing about the issue?

This is basically saying that the sky isn't blue because the grass isn't peanut butter. There's really nothing to debate here.

While POS is using hyperbole to make his point, the fact still remains that there is little scientific evidence that added CO2
actually causes any warming. While it should by itself, based on physics, CO2 does not exists by itself.
Our best guess is that the Earth would be 33C cooler, if the atmosphere were completely transparent,
and of that 33C, 20% or 6.6C is thought to be from CO2.

 

[OlNate]

While POS is using hyperbole to make his point, the fact still remains that there is little scientific evidence that added CO2
actually causes any warming. While it should by itself, based on physics, CO2 does not exists by itself.
Our best guess is that the Earth would be 33C cooler, if the atmosphere were completely transparent,
and of that 33C, 20% or 6.6C is thought to be from CO2.

Given the seriousness and the stakes involved with this debate, perhaps it would be best to avoid hyperbole designed to trigger a response, vs. further understanding.

 

[longview]

Given the seriousness and the stakes involved with this debate, perhaps it would be best to avoid hyperbole designed to trigger a response, vs. further understanding.

The seriousness is implied only if a combination of "IF's" occur together.
IF the climates sensitivity is on the high end of the range,
and IF the emission scenario is the highest one, THEN, stuff MAY happen!
If you look at most of the alarmist claims, they are tied to RCP8.5, which is all but an impossible scenario.
RCP8.5, calls for CO2 levels in year 2100, to be 1370 ppm, or an average increase 12 ppm per year.
The last 20 years have averaged about 2.3 ppm per year.
In addition some of the lead authors of IPCC AR5, found that based on observations the likely ECS sensitivity for doubling the
CO2 level was about 2C.
https://ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/sp...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf

The most likely value of equilibrium climate sensitivity based on the energy budget of the most recent decade is 2.0 °C

 

[Jack Hays]

How about an appeal for actual facts that disprove the assertion, rather than unrelated graphs that say nothing about the issue?

This is basically saying that the sky isn't blue because the grass isn't peanut butter. There's really nothing to debate here.

How Climate Change Pseudoscience Became Publicly Accepted

[h=2]Climate debate at the Cambridge Union - a 10 minute summary of the main problems with the standard alarmist polemic[/h]

 

[OlNate]

The seriousness is implied only if a combination of "IF's" occur together.
IF the climates sensitivity is on the high end of the range,
and IF the emission scenario is the highest one, THEN, stuff MAY happen!
If you look at most of the alarmist claims, they are tied to RCP8.5, which is all but an impossible scenario.
RCP8.5, calls for CO2 levels in year 2100, to be 1370 ppm, or an average increase 12 ppm per year.
The last 20 years have averaged about 2.3 ppm per year.
In addition some of the lead authors of IPCC AR5, found that based on observations the likely ECS sensitivity for doubling the
CO2 level was about 2C.
https://ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/sp...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf

How Climate Change Pseudoscience Became Publicly Accepted

[h=2]Climate debate at the Cambridge Union - a 10 minute summary of the main problems with the standard alarmist polemic[/h]

Boys, boys... I think I've told you both that I don't do the climate debate thing. I'm just here for the shoddy debate tactics. Given that he's on your side, you should probably be thanking me...his bad methodology damages your credibility. :shrug:

 

[Jack Hays]

Boys, boys... I think I've told you both that I don't do the climate debate thing. I'm just here for the shoddy debate tactics. Given that he's on your side, you should probably be thanking me...his bad methodology damages your credibility. :shrug:

He's making a fair point. Causation has always been a weakness for the alarmists, expressed most powerfully by the failure of their paradigm to solve the climate sensitivity puzzle.

 

[OlNate]

He's making a fair point. Causation has always been a weakness for the alarmists, expressed most powerfully by the failure of their paradigm to solve the climate sensitivity puzzle.

Causation is a valid aspect to consider in any analysis, and the belittling nature of his particular examples takes any seriousness out of the conversation. If that's how you want to be represented, by all means, knock yourself out. Just don't be surprised that your voice is muted as a result. :shrug: As for me, the relatively uneducated, I'm not sold on the ridiculous. You guys are already behind the eight ball, in terms of public perception. If you truly want to be taken seriously, be serious.

 

[longview]

Boys, boys... I think I've told you both that I don't do the climate debate thing. I'm just here for the shoddy debate tactics. Given that he's on your side, you should probably be thanking me...his bad methodology damages your credibility. :shrug:

You stated, "Given the seriousness and the stakes involved " without understanding the basis of the alarm.
If you think Human caused climate change is a problem, defend your position?

 

[Jack Hays]

Causation is a valid aspect to consider in any analysis, and the belittling nature of his particular examples takes any seriousness out of the conversation. If that's how you want to be represented, by all means, knock yourself out. Just don't be surprised that your voice is muted as a result. :shrug: As for me, the relatively uneducated, I'm not sold on the ridiculous. You guys are already behind the eight ball, in terms of public perception. If you truly want to be taken seriously, be serious.

Compared to what we get called, PoS is a paragon of seriousness and dignity.

 

[OlNate]

Compared to what we get called, PoS is a paragon of seriousness and dignity.

lol...ouch. That's pretty rough. :lol:

 

[OlNate]

You stated, "Given the seriousness and the stakes involved " without understanding the basis of the alarm.
If you think Human caused climate change is a problem, defend your position?

I think, given the stakes being presented by both sides - the apocalyptic consequences of climate change being toted by those who use science to say it's real, and the immense waste of money being toted by those who use science to say it's not - warrant a more serious approach overall. No matter who is right, there is something heavy at stake. I think something better than a flippant upraised middle finger should be demanded by both sides....don't you?

Let me turn this over to you....why do you debate this so hard? It must be important to you...would that be correct? And if it is correct, would you want this important view you hold to be delivered with gravity, or by a clown?

 

[vegas giants]

You stated, "Given the seriousness and the stakes involved " without understanding the basis of the alarm.
If you think Human caused climate change is a problem, defend your position?

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

 

[istodolez]

Actually he is demonstrating a know fact in statistics,
"Correlation does not imply causation"!

That is definitely a truth of statistics. However it has virtually NOTHING whatsoever to do with Anthropogenic Climate Change. The ONLY people who might think that the correlation was causation in regards to temp and CO2 and nothing else are NOT the scientists.

The scientists all appreciate a much deeper level of inference predicated on extensive physics, chemistry and analysis.

That said, it is very likely that the increases in CO2 is causing some warming, but the amount of the observed warming attributed
to the increased CO2 is a scientific unknown.

It is not unknown. It may not be known to the exact value we have a pretty good idea of the "climate sensitivity" of CO2. It is estimated by a number of independent methods all of which zero in on a range between 1.5 to 4.5degC.

Source: The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth's temperature to radiation changes | Nature Geoscience

 

[Jack Hays]

That is definitely a truth of statistics. However it has virtually NOTHING whatsoever to do with Anthropogenic Climate Change. The ONLY people who might think that the correlation was causation in regards to temp and CO2 and nothing else are NOT the scientists.

The scientists all appreciate a much deeper level of inference predicated on extensive physics, chemistry and analysis.



It is not unknown. It may not be known to the exact value we have a pretty good idea of the "climate sensitivity" of CO2. It is estimated by a number of independent methods all of which zero in on a range between 1.5 to 4.5degC.

Source: The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth's temperature to radiation changes | Nature Geoscience

A demonstration of failure.

 

[vegas giants]

A demonstration of failure.

At least you tried