The Correlation = Causation Fallacy of Climate Alarmists

[istodolez]

A demonstration of failure.

No clue what you mean. But then you specialize in simply denigrating people's posts rather than actually engaging in the conversation.

Your special brand of trolling is getting a bit tiring.

 

[Jack Hays]

No clue what you mean. But then you specialize in simply denigrating people's posts rather than actually engaging in the conversation.

Your special brand of trolling is getting a bit tiring.

It is the failure to solve the puzzle of ECS.

 

[istodolez]

At least you tried

I wouldn't go that far.

 

[istodolez]

It is the failure to solve the puzzle of ECS.

LOL. And what, praytell, is the "puzzle"?

But more importantly: how does a set of estimations of a value based on independent methods that arrive at a narrowed estimate of the value amount to a "failure" in your estimation, Dr. Einstein?

What part of DATA do you have the most problem with (other than basic understanding of it).

 

[Jack Hays]

LOL. And what, praytell, is the "puzzle"?

But more importantly: how does a set of estimations of a value based on independent methods that arrive at a narrowed estimate of the value amount to a "failure" in your estimation, Dr. Einstein?

What part of DATA do you have the most problem with (other than basic understanding of it).

All explained here.

The Test and Failure of the AGW Paradigm

 

[PoS]

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.

Just because I am showing the fallacies, it doesnt mean I believe in them. Herp derp.

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.

I agree! I am waiting for anyone to show me facts that prove the temp rise is due to human doing.

All you're ever good for.

Still no facts I see LOL Herp Derp.

 

[longview]

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?

I debate, because this concept of catastrophic man made global warming, is an abomination of the scientific method.
It draws on partial data, to construct a limited view of the future earth, based not on science but a political agenda.
And then attempts to exclude any data that shows a different conclusion. The consensus, and the science is settled!
Science is not a consensus game, and the science is never settled!
In addition, The AGW movement, is addressing the wrong problem!
Humanity does not have a CO2 problem, we have an energy problem!
Earth does not contain enough naturally formed hydrocarbons, to allow every Human alive now, to live a first world lifestyle
if they wanted to. People who speak of social justice, will often mention wealth distribution,
but energy distribution may end up being more important!
Simple things that energy provides, that are not universally available, like hot and cold running water, refrigeration,
reliable electricity, transportation, ect, ect!
Our sustainable future, must move beyond energy sources we fine laying about, and look to what sources we can adjust to our demands.
Only one technology combination currently available fits.
Electricity for alternate sources like solar and nuclear, combined with man made carbon neutral hydrocarbon fuels.
Alternate sources like solar and wind, lack the duty cycle coverage to do the task alone.
Nuclear is great for electricity, but cannot fuel jets and tractors ( I suppose a battery tractor would work, but not a battery passenger jet).
Man made hydrocarbon fuels, allows the intermittent alternate sources to be stored and accumulated, in a form of
energy storage we already have a demand for, and could allow the storage of nuclear generated electricity,
for demands beyond the nuclear plants transmission range.

 

[vegas giants]

I debate, because this concept of catastrophic man made global warming, is an abomination of the scientific method.
It draws on partial data, to construct a limited view of the future earth, based not on science but a political agenda.
And then attempts to exclude any data that shows a different conclusion. The consensus, and the science is settled!
Science is not a consensus game, and the science is never settled!
In addition, The AGW movement, is addressing the wrong problem!
Humanity does not have a CO2 problem, we have an energy problem!
Earth does not contain enough naturally formed hydrocarbons, to allow every Human alive now, to live a first world lifestyle
if they wanted to. People who speak of social justice, will often mention wealth distribution,
but energy distribution may end up being more important!
Simple things that energy provides, that are not universally available, like hot and cold running water, refrigeration,
reliable electricity, transportation, ect, ect!
Our sustainable future, must move beyond energy sources we fine laying about, and look to what sources we can adjust to our demands.
Only one technology combination currently available fits.
Electricity for alternate sources like solar and nuclear, combined with man made carbon neutral hydrocarbon fuels.
Alternate sources like solar and wind, lack the duty cycle coverage to do the task alone.
Nuclear is great for electricity, but cannot fuel jets and tractors ( I suppose a battery tractor would work, but not a battery passenger jet).
Man made hydrocarbon fuels, allows the intermittent alternate sources to be stored and accumulated, in a form of
energy storage we already have a demand for, and could allow the storage of nuclear generated electricity,
for demands beyond the nuclear plants transmission range.

You don't have to convince us.....you have to convince every science agency on earth

 

[longview]

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

That deeper level of inference, is still an inference, an assumption, based on how they think the added gasses will work in the atmosphere.
The reality is that almost everyone agrees, that all the CO2 in the atmosphere since earth had an atmosphere,
produces between 4 and 8.5 C, all of it, eight plus doubling s, if you only start counting at 1ppm.
This means that each doubling has a fully equalized potential of between .5 and 1C, or less.
(This is based on CO2's portion of a 33C warmer Earth being between 11% and 26%.)
Since the forcing level of 2XCO2 is stated as 1.1C, it looks like that the feedbacks are negative, not positive!
Recent observed warming, to me looks like it could be more related to increases in solar energy striking the ground.
From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at Earth's Surface | Science

Over the period covered so far by BSRN (1992 to 2001), the decrease in earth reflectance corresponds to an increase
of 6 W m-2 in absorbed solar radiation by the globe (22).

 

[OlNate]

I debate, because this concept of catastrophic man made global warming, is an abomination of the scientific method.
It draws on partial data, to construct a limited view of the future earth, based not on science but a political agenda.
And then attempts to exclude any data that shows a different conclusion. The consensus, and the science is settled!
Science is not a consensus game, and the science is never settled!
In addition, The AGW movement, is addressing the wrong problem!
Humanity does not have a CO2 problem, we have an energy problem!
Earth does not contain enough naturally formed hydrocarbons, to allow every Human alive now, to live a first world lifestyle
if they wanted to. People who speak of social justice, will often mention wealth distribution,
but energy distribution may end up being more important!
Simple things that energy provides, that are not universally available, like hot and cold running water, refrigeration,
reliable electricity, transportation, ect, ect!
Our sustainable future, must move beyond energy sources we fine laying about, and look to what sources we can adjust to our demands.
Only one technology combination currently available fits.
Electricity for alternate sources like solar and nuclear, combined with man made carbon neutral hydrocarbon fuels.
Alternate sources like solar and wind, lack the duty cycle coverage to do the task alone.
Nuclear is great for electricity, but cannot fuel jets and tractors ( I suppose a battery tractor would work, but not a battery passenger jet).
Man made hydrocarbon fuels, allows the intermittent alternate sources to be stored and accumulated, in a form of
energy storage we already have a demand for, and could allow the storage of nuclear generated electricity,
for demands beyond the nuclear plants transmission range.

That's all interesting...but my question was about methodology and representation. Did you want to address that, or is solidarity with anyone who supports your point of view more important than being taken seriously?

 

[Mr Person]

LOL Herp Derp.

What an intelligent substantive comment that was. It really went a long way to proving that climate scientists don't know that correlation does not prove causation.









:lol:

I agree! I am waiting for anyone to show me facts that prove the temp rise is due to human doing.

How monstrously stupid of you. You need to become a trained climate scientist who is capable of understanding all those papers you never read to get that. You're not and you won't, because you can't. You're just someone running their mouth on the internet. Climate scientists are not going to waste their time on you. It's not their or anyone else's duty to prove to your that you are wrong. You are calling them wrong, so it's your duty to prove it, and you can't do that hiding away on an anonymous internet forum.

So you just sit there wearing your magic hat and your magic cape, and tell yourself that you totally *GOT* those climate scientists by posting your stupid bull**** on the internet, anonymously, like all Super Scientists do.

:lamo

 

[PoS]

You need to become a trained climate scientist who is capable of understanding all those papers you never read to get that.

LOL you mean like you?

You need to stop projecting since you think all these studies (that you fail to even mention) are somehow true. Blindly flailing about your profound ignorance on any matter doesnt make you right.

And I'll humor you- there are literally thousands of scientists who disagree about climate change: Yes, Virginia- Thousands of Scientists Are Skeptical of Climate Change

The links are there, and their names are there. So no, science isnt on your side, in fact, its against it.

Better luck next time! :lol::2wave:

 

[istodolez]

That deeper level of inference, is still an inference, an assumption, based on how they think the added gasses will work in the atmosphere.
The reality is that almost everyone agrees, that all the CO2 in the atmosphere since earth had an atmosphere,
produces between 4 and 8.5 C,

Are you basing this 4-8.5degC on the estimation that CO2 accounts for about 1/3 of the overall greenhouse effect and that the greenhouse effect accounts for about 34degC warming over the blackbody temperature of the earth as calculated by the Stefan Boltzman equation?

all of it, eight plus doubling s, if you only start counting at 1ppm.
This means that each doubling has a fully equalized potential of between .5 and 1C, or less.

May I ask why you choose to go with such a grossly oversimplified system? Considering that the system contains extremely well-known feedbacks...thankfully the good folks at the American Chemical Society have a nice write-up in relation to the calculation and associated issues.

It can be found HERE

Since the forcing level of 2XCO2 is stated as 1.1C, it looks like that the feedbacks are negative, not positive!

Not sure how you got to that point. In fact here's what the simplified calculations result in (also including CH4 forcing for their example):

The increase in CO2 from about 185 to about 265 ppm gives a radiative forcing of

ΔFCO2 = (5.35 W·m–2) ln(265/185) = 1.9 W·m–2

The radiative forcing for CH4 is determined in a way analogous to that for CO2. For the increase of CH4 from about 375 to about 675 ppb, ΔFCH4 ≈ 0.3 W·m–2. Thus, the total radiative forcing, ΔF, due to these two greenhouse gases is about 2.2 W·m–2. The predicted change in the average planetary surface temperature is

ΔT ≈ [0.3 K·(W·m–2)–1] (2.2 W·m–2) ≈ 0.7 K

Analyses from multiple sites based on several different temperature proxies indicate that Earth’s average surface temperature increased between 3 and 4 K during the change from the last glacial period to the present era.

Our calculated temperature change, that includes only the radiative forcing from increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, accounts for 20-25% of this observed temperature increase. This result implies climate sensitivity factor perhaps four to five times greater, ∼1.3 K·(W·m–2)–1, than obtained by simply balancing the radiative forcing of the greenhouse gases. The analysis based only on greenhouse gas forcing has not accounted for feedbacks in the planetary system triggered by increasing temperature, including changes in the structure of the atmosphere.

Recent observed warming, to me looks like it could be more related to increases in solar energy striking the ground.
From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at Earth's Surface | Science

(Emphasis added)

How could all the feedbacks be negative if the calculated temperature increase is less than the actual temperature increase (which obviously includes the feedbacks)?

 

[Mr Person]

LOL you mean like you?

<baity swill snipped>

What, you thought you'd evade the point with your typical dishonest editing?

You need to become a trained climate scientist who is capable of understanding all those papers you never read to get that. You're not and you won't, because you can't. You're just someone running their mouth on the internet. Climate scientists are not going to waste their time on you. It's not their or anyone else's duty to prove to your that you are wrong. You are calling them wrong, so it's your duty to prove it, and you can't do that hiding away on an anonymous internet forum.

So you just sit there wearing your magic hat and your magic cape, and tell yourself that you totally *GOT* those climate scientists by posting your stupid bull**** on the internet, anonymously, like all Super Scientists do.


All this is is another hopelessly stupid failure of a thread, and the hilarious thing is you don't even see it. You legitimately believe that by running your mouth on the internet anonymously, you create a "debate", and in that debate it becomes everyone else's duty to prove you wrong.

That is not how this works. That is not how anything works.

:lol:






______________
PSA: the bolding is designed to help PoS understand the words. Probably about as effective as speaking louder and more slowly in English to a French person when they don't understand you the first time, but hey . . .

 

[vegas giants]

LOL you mean like you?

You need to stop projecting since you think all these studies (that you fail to even mention) are somehow true. Blindly flailing about your profound ignorance on any matter doesnt make you right.

And I'll humor you- there are literally thousands of scientists who disagree about climate change: Yes, Virginia- Thousands of Scientists Are Skeptical of Climate Change

The links are there, and their names are there. So no, science isnt on your side, in fact, its against it.

Better luck next time! :lol::2wave:

My god you are the king of fake news

 

[PoS]

That is not how this works. That is not how anything works.

LOL you dont know how anything works. :lol:

I gave you a link that spells out all the scientists and their studies that are refuting climate change, and what do you do? You herp and derp, as always!

Come on, refute them! I dare you!

Here is the link again since you keep censoring it because it proves you wrong: Yes, Virginia- Thousands of Scientists Are Skeptical of Climate Change

 

[vegas giants]

LOL you dont know how anything works. :lol:

I gave you a link that spells out all the scientists and their studies that are refuting climate change, and what do you do? You herp and derp, as always!

Come on, refute them! I dare you!

Here is the link again since you keep censoring it because it proves you wrong: Yes, Virginia- Thousands of Scientists Are Skeptical of Climate Change

It is completely and utterly fake. Those scientists do NOT dispute AGW

 

[istodolez]

I debate, because this concept of catastrophic man made global warming, is an abomination of the scientific method.

Let's parse this for a second. Whenever I see someone explicitly add in "catastrophic" it is a "tell" for me. What it says is that if I were to provide data and evidence that AGW is real (obviously easily done) you could retreat to "But I wasn't talking about whether it was real or not...I'm talking about the catastrophic nature that some people call out!"

It's a game of epistemological "whack-a-mole" because no matter how much data is provided to show that AGW is real you get to hide behind "catastrophic". The fact of the matter is we don't know how bad it CAN get, but we DO KNOW that it will be a MAJOR CHANGE in our climate that could result in SIGNIFICANT ALTERATIONS to pretty much everything we as a society rely on.

Remember: in the 14,000 years or so that humans have gathered in cities the global climate has been pretty steady. Meaning we've adapted to a variety of climates across the globe but in all those cases the climates remained relatively stable overall. Sure there have been cases where local climate dramatically changed and those cases almost never resulted in something BETTER.. Just ask the Mayans of Mesoamerica whose entire civilization was essentially destroyed due to multidecadal droughts.

If we know we can alter the climate (again scientists agree this is possible) why would we "roll the dice"?

It draws on partial data, to construct a limited view of the future earth, based not on science but a political agenda.

Bull****.

And then attempts to exclude any data that shows a different conclusion.

I wish you folks would stop trying to tell me that the field I went into, science, is loaded up with a bunch of unethical liars. Perhaps the fact that you see it so commonly in others should tell me that whatever it is you do for a living is made up mostly of unethical liars.

Is that the case? Are you a member of a group of UNETHICAL LIARS?

Or could it just be that your simplified back-of-the-envelope calculations are in error?

So, the NEXT TIME you decide that AGW is mostly due to scientists "lying" or "Hiding" the data or "shading the conclusions" in order to get a buck...I will know that you are EXPLICITLY SAYING that that is what YOU and everyone in YOUR field does.

The consensus, and the science is settled!
Science is not a consensus game, and the science is never settled!

You need to understand LOGIC before you can hold forth on topics like this.

A good hypothesis isn't good because it has amassed a consensus. But a good hypothesis should develop a consensus.

 

[Mr Person]

What, you thought you'd evade the point with your typical dishonest editing?

You need to become a trained climate scientist who is capable of understanding all those papers you never read to get that. You're not and you won't, because you can't. You're just someone running their mouth on the internet. Climate scientists are not going to waste their time on you. It's not their or anyone else's duty to prove to your that you are wrong. You are calling them wrong, so it's your duty to prove it, and you can't do that hiding away on an anonymous internet forum.

So you just sit there wearing your magic hat and your magic cape, and tell yourself that you totally *GOT* those climate scientists by posting your stupid bull**** on the internet, anonymously, like all Super Scientists do.


All this is is another hopelessly stupid failure of a thread, and the hilarious thing is you don't even see it. You legitimately believe that by running your mouth on the internet anonymously, you create a "debate", and in that debate it becomes everyone else's duty to prove you wrong.

That is not how this works. That is not how anything works.

:lol:






______________
PSA: the bolding is designed to help PoS understand the words. Probably about as effective as speaking louder and more slowly in English to a French person when they don't understand you the first time, but hey . . .

That is not how this works. That is not how anything works.

LOL you dont know how anything works. :lol:

I gave you a link that spells out all the scientists and their studies that are refuting climate change, and what do you do? You herp and derp, as always!

Come on, refute them! I dare you!

Here is the link again since you keep censoring it because it proves you wrong: Yes, Virginia- Thousands of Scientists Are Skeptical of Climate Change

LOL, and he runs with the dishonest editing again.

Sorry, hate to burst your bubble (not really), but you cannot actually prove that climate science is bunk by posting your silly crap on the internet. If you want to disprove AGW, you have to get into the field and convince the other scientists in it that they are wrong with actual analysis.

And I'm sorry, but that cape is not magic. You may have worn it while posting, but that doesn't mean that by posting you shifted the burden onto other people to disprove the stupid **** you said. Burden's still on you, and posting links to articles on the internet doesn't do anything to affect the validity of AGW. Especially not where those articles have "thousands of scientists" rather than "thousands of climate scientists" in the title, for the same reason you don't go to a neurosurgeon for heart surgery.

But then, I'm wasting my time on a guy who legitimately cannot tell the difference between a cold night in one English town and a global climate; a guy who reads an article about greenhouse gas emissions in meat production and fears he will be "forced to become vegan" and "banned from farting". It's not like I don't know that this subforum isn't just here so you can cosplay Super Scientist.

 

[ludin]

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.

CAusation is a valid aspect to consider, but what you can't do is correlate things together which is what the OP is saying.
just because two things might trend in the same direction does not mean that they are causing each other to do it.

one might be a factor but not the ultimate cause.

Sorry the muting and suppression of voices is not very scientific. The entire basis of science is based on skepticism. when you get into a field
of science where skepticism is not allowed or punished then that isn't being very scientific.

 

[Jack Hays]

Let's parse this for a second. Whenever I see someone explicitly add in "catastrophic" it is a "tell" for me. What it says is that if I were to provide data and evidence that AGW is real (obviously easily done) you could retreat to "But I wasn't talking about whether it was real or not...I'm talking about the catastrophic nature that some people call out!"

It's a game of epistemological "whack-a-mole" because no matter how much data is provided to show that AGW is real you get to hide behind "catastrophic". . . .

[h=3]On Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory – asz ...[/h]asz.ink › 2018/03/22 › on-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-warmin...

Mar 22, 2018 - But questioning catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory ... Also, note that “climate change” is the slippiest possible term to frame the debate with. Climate is by any reasonable definition the average weather over a ...

 

[longview]

That's all interesting...but my question was about methodology and representation. Did you want to address that, or is solidarity with anyone who supports your point of view more important than being taken seriously?

It should be endemic for all of us to point out logical fallacies in any branch of science where we see them.
Who points them out and the methodology is not so important.
The greatest loss to Humanity, would be for it to loose faith that the scientific method works,
that we can solve problems through our application of a logical approach.
Without it we regress back to superstition!

 

[istodolez]

[h=3]On Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory – asz ...[/h]asz.ink › 2018/03/22 › on-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-warmin...


Mar 22, 2018 - But questioning catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory ... Also, note that “climate change” is the slippiest possible term to frame the debate with. Climate is by any reasonable definition the average weather over a ...

"Skepticism is a virtue. But questioning catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory seems to be a vice. We are told to believe that the debate is settled; there is scientific consensus that humans are the driving cause of global warming. Any skepticism at this point only serves to confuse policymakers and delay urgent political action. To the contrary, I contend that there is just cause for skepticism."

"Skepticism is a virtue." Correction: INFORMED skepticism is a virtue.. Any moron with a high school science class can "doubt" something...it's only valuable if they understand what it is they doubt and why they doubt it from a technical stand point.

 

[Jack Hays]

"Skepticism is a virtue. But questioning catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory seems to be a vice. We are told to believe that the debate is settled; there is scientific consensus that humans are the driving cause of global warming. Any skepticism at this point only serves to confuse policymakers and delay urgent political action. To the contrary, I contend that there is just cause for skepticism."

"Skepticism is a virtue." Correction: INFORMED skepticism is a virtue.. Any moron with a high school science class can "doubt" something...it's only valuable if they understand what it is they doubt and why they doubt it from a technical stand point.

How very 1984 of you.

 

[cabse5]

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.

Environmentalists have been able to document increases in CO2. Environmentalists haven't been able to document increases in temperature.