Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

[RollingThunder]

The obvious?

There is no science demonstrating the significance and/or magnitude of the contribution of man made CO2 to any warming.

That surely is obvious.

As I haven't ever commented on that, it is impossible that I ever denied or confirmed it.

Thank you for confirming that you are dodging the observation that the difference in the lows of each leveling off period quantifies man's contribution to global warming.

It does correlate with it, but correlation is not causation.

Thus, my lack of comment.

Some of you denier cult nutjobs are certainly fixated on your mantra of "correlation is not causation". Too bad for you that the statement is poorly framed scientifically even in the sense you mean it and it is also a logical fallacy in it's own right, in the way you use it. And of course, as is always the case with your denier cult drivel and pseudo-science, it is quite meaningless in relation to the reality of global warming.

First of all, the correct way to express this concept clearly in the sciences is: "Correlation does not necessarily imply causation."

Two things that show heavy correlation do indeed sometimes have a causational link. While correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation, it can be part of the evidence for causation.

And of course there are multiple lines of observed evidence for the reality of anthropogenic global warming. Climate scientists are not at all depending on statistical correlation to know that AGW is true, as you anti-science denier cult retards seem to imagine. I've already responded to your idiotic claim that there is no scientific evidence causally linking mankind's CO2 emissions to the current abrupt warming trend a number of times, like in post #135 of this thread but you are too much of retarded troll to admit that you were wrong and there is in fact a lot of good science linking the two. Remember, you moronic little dipshyt.....
Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

And now, the logical fallacy you're engaging in....

How To Argue
The New England Skeptical Society
(excerpts)

Confusing correlation with causation

This is similar to the post-hoc fallacy in that it assumes cause and effect for two variables simply because they occur together. This fallacy is often used to give a statistical correlation a causal interpretation. For example, during the 1990’s both religious attendance and illegal drug use have been on the rise. It would be a fallacy to conclude that therefore, religious attendance causes illegal drug use. It is also possible that drug use leads to an increase in religious attendance, or that both drug use and religious attendance are increased by a third variable, such as an increase in societal unrest. It is also possible that both variables are independent of one another, and it is mere coincidence that they are both increasing at the same time.

This fallacy, however, has a tendency to be abused, or applied inappropriately, to deny all statistical evidence. In fact this constitutes a logical fallacy in itself, the denial of causation. This abuse takes two basic forms. The first is to deny the significance of correlations that are demonstrated with prospective controlled data, such as would be acquired during a clinical experiment. The problem with assuming cause and effect from mere correlation is not that a causal relationship is impossible, it’s just that there are other variables that must be considered and not ruled out a-priori. A controlled trial, however, by its design attempts to control for as many variables as possible in order to maximize the probability that a positive correlation is in fact due to a causation.

Further, even with purely epidemiological, or statistical, evidence it is still possible to build a strong scientific case for a specific cause. The way to do this is to look at multiple independent correlations to see if they all point to the same causal relationship. For example, it was observed that cigarette smoking correlates with getting lung cancer. The tobacco industry, invoking the “correlation is not causation” logical fallacy, argued that this did not prove causation. They offered as an alternate explanation “factor x”, a third variable that causes both smoking and lung cancer. But we can make predictions based upon the smoking causes cancer hypothesis. If this is the correct causal relationship, then duration of smoking should correlate with cancer risk, quitting smoking should decrease cancer risk, smoking unfiltered cigarettes should have a higher cancer risk than filtered cigarettes, etc. If all of these correlations turn out to be true, which they are, then we can triangulate to the smoking causes cancer hypothesis as the most likely possible causal relationship and it is not a logical fallacy to conclude from this evidence that smoking probably causes lung cancer.

 

[Si modo]

Thank you for confirming that you are dodging the observation that the difference in the lows of each leveling off period quantifies man's contribution to global warming.

It does correlate with it, but correlation is not causation.

Thus, my lack of comment.

Some of you denier cult nutjobs are certainly fixated on your mantra of "correlation is not causation".
....

It's not a matra. It's logic.

And, every educated scientist knows that correlation does not equal causation.

Because it doesn't.

Otherwise, we should disband the US Postal Service immediately!

 

[SAT]

That says that CO2 increases are a result of man.

And, somehow YOU think that means warming is caused by man, is that right?

It's what the EPA is explaining. Increasing levels of CO2, from industrial activity, have changed the atmosphere,


....

That is true. The EPA said that.

... which alters the climate.

The EPA did not say that.

Yes, they did.

There are five bullet points at the link. Read them all.

 

[Si modo]

It's what the EPA is explaining. Increasing levels of CO2, from industrial activity, have changed the atmosphere,


....

That is true. The EPA said that.

... which alters the climate.

The EPA did not say that.

Yes, they did.

There are five bullet points at the link. Read them all.

I've read them.

So, you clearly are hallucinating.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The EPA link states definitively that the current warming trend is linked to human activity.

Here's the thing about science-when you radically change a situation, you are going to see a reaction.

To think that we can begin to put ever increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and see no changes in the environment is stupid.

It's like claiming that you go from eating 1,500 calories a day to eating 4,000 and you won't see any change in your weight. That claim would be stupid.

From the link:

Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.

State of Knowledge | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

Do you see where it says "well understood"?

That means that it's not a mystery to scientists what will happen if you increase greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It's like boiling an egg. You know what will happen in you put an egg in hot water for 20 minutes. The egg will change. To claim that the egg will not change, even though it is in hot water is stupid. We understand perfectly well what will happen to the egg.

Ummmm, no they're not. Well let me correct myself, they are now. Now that Hansen and Co. went into the historical record AND ALTERED IT! They made the decade of th 1930's cooler then it actually was to try and reinforce the fiction that this last decade is the warmest.

When you remove the shenanigans that the warmests are doing all this hyperbole is exposed for what it is. Horse manure.

2010 record temperature

From the link:

CON$ are pathological liars. That graph is NOT from BEST!!! It is from the Right-wing Global Warming Policy Foundation, a CON$ervative think-tank founded by denier Lord Lawson of Blaby.

And there were no cool downs in between, the warming leveled off but didn't cool. If you look at the lows from the last 30 year flat "cool down" from 1950 to 1980, none of the lows were as low as the last flat "cool down" from 1890 to 1920. Something is interfering with the natural cool down cycles between the warming cycles.

LOL.....you can always tell the knuckleheads who never had a course in research methodology.................

Yo s0n.......you know, you can crunch the dates of that graph even closer together and make the rise look meteroic!!! Put 1900 and 2011 just 4 inches apart and you got a real winner!!!

Go.......go.........go

Yea, that was my point. You can stretch or shorten the Y axis and make changes look different.

The NASA graph shows the trend of the last 130 years. If you cherry pick a couple of months out of that, you can make the trend look different, but an honest look shows the upward trend.

To think that we can begin to put ever increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and see no changes in the environment is stupid.

To think that if we stopped putting CO2 into the atmosphere we'd see no changes in the environment is stupid.

 

[SAT]

The fifth bullet point. What is it that increasing amounts of greenhouse gases do?

To think that if we stopped putting CO2 into the atmosphere we'd see no changes in the environment is stupid.

True.

 

[Si modo]

The fifth bullet point. What is it that increasing amounts of greenhouse gases do?

To think that if we stopped putting CO2 into the atmosphere we'd see no changes in the environment is stupid.

True.

I have no idea what you are saying.

Are you quoting a poster or the EPA?

Why don't you quote the EPA instead of paraphrasing what you think the EPA said?

 

[SAT]

I have quoted the EPA several times. I also directed you to read the bullet points under "What's Known". What is it that greenhouse gases tend to do?

I also quoted a poster. You don't make climate change go away by being annoying.

 

[Si modo]

I have quoted the EPA several times. I also directed you to read the bullet points under "What's Known". What is it that greenhouse gases tend to do?

I also quoted a poster. You don't make climate change go away by being annoying.

I'm sorry I'm annoying you. That is not my intent.

Yet, and as I said, as I say, and as I keep repeating because the 'believers' WANT so hard to believe, that says nothing about the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

Pissing in the ocean tends to raise its alkalinity.

The state of the science does not allow for ANY conclusion about the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

And, correlation is not causation, either.

 

[SAT]

Planet Neptune was discovered in 1848...coincidence? Not if I get "peer review" that the discovery of Neptune was responsible for the "rise"

And you won't get peer review that says that. Got it?

Some of you denier cult nutjobs are certainly fixated on your mantra of "correlation is not causation". Too bad for you that the statement is poorly framed scientifically even in the sense you mean it and it is also a logical fallacy in it's own right, in the way you use it. And of course, as is always the case with your denier cult drivel and pseudo-science, it is quite meaningless in relation to the reality of global warming.

First of all, the correct way to express this concept clearly in the sciences is: "Correlation does not necessarily imply causation."

Two things that show heavy correlation do indeed sometimes have a causational link. While correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation, it can be part of the evidence for causation.

And of course there are multiple lines of observed evidence for the reality of anthropogenic global warming. Climate scientists are not at all depending on statistical correlation to know that AGW is true, as you anti-science denier cult retards seem to imagine. I've already responded to your idiotic claim that there is no scientific evidence causally linking mankind's CO2 emissions to the current abrupt warming trend a number of times, like in post #135 of this thread but you are too much of retarded troll to admit that you were wrong and there is in fact a lot of good science linking the two. Remember, you moronic little dipshyt.....
Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

And now, the logical fallacy you're engaging in....

How To Argue
The New England Skeptical Society
(excerpts)

Confusing correlation with causation

This is similar to the post-hoc fallacy in that it assumes cause and effect for two variables simply because they occur together. This fallacy is often used to give a statistical correlation a causal interpretation. For example, during the 1990’s both religious attendance and illegal drug use have been on the rise. It would be a fallacy to conclude that therefore, religious attendance causes illegal drug use. It is also possible that drug use leads to an increase in religious attendance, or that both drug use and religious attendance are increased by a third variable, such as an increase in societal unrest. It is also possible that both variables are independent of one another, and it is mere coincidence that they are both increasing at the same time.

This fallacy, however, has a tendency to be abused, or applied inappropriately, to deny all statistical evidence. In fact this constitutes a logical fallacy in itself, the denial of causation. This abuse takes two basic forms. The first is to deny the significance of correlations that are demonstrated with prospective controlled data, such as would be acquired during a clinical experiment. The problem with assuming cause and effect from mere correlation is not that a causal relationship is impossible, it’s just that there are other variables that must be considered and not ruled out a-priori. A controlled trial, however, by its design attempts to control for as many variables as possible in order to maximize the probability that a positive correlation is in fact due to a causation.

Further, even with purely epidemiological, or statistical, evidence it is still possible to build a strong scientific case for a specific cause. The way to do this is to look at multiple independent correlations to see if they all point to the same causal relationship. For example, it was observed that cigarette smoking correlates with getting lung cancer. The tobacco industry, invoking the “correlation is not causation” logical fallacy, argued that this did not prove causation. They offered as an alternate explanation “factor x”, a third variable that causes both smoking and lung cancer. But we can make predictions based upon the smoking causes cancer hypothesis. If this is the correct causal relationship, then duration of smoking should correlate with cancer risk, quitting smoking should decrease cancer risk, smoking unfiltered cigarettes should have a higher cancer risk than filtered cigarettes, etc. If all of these correlations turn out to be true, which they are, then we can triangulate to the smoking causes cancer hypothesis as the most likely possible causal relationship and it is not a logical fallacy to conclude from this evidence that smoking probably causes lung cancer.

Thanks for the excellent post.

I believe that they think that science means:

Always be skeptical, even if the evidence shows there's no reason for your skepticism

and, as you said, "Correlation is not causation".

As if when two things are correlated, scientists immediately ignore the correlation and go off in some other directions.

 

[Si modo]

Planet Neptune was discovered in 1848...coincidence? Not if I get "peer review" that the discovery of Neptune was responsible for the "rise"

And you won't get peer review that says that. Got it?

Some of you denier cult nutjobs are certainly fixated on your mantra of "correlation is not causation". Too bad for you that the statement is poorly framed scientifically even in the sense you mean it and it is also a logical fallacy in it's own right, in the way you use it. And of course, as is always the case with your denier cult drivel and pseudo-science, it is quite meaningless in relation to the reality of global warming.

First of all, the correct way to express this concept clearly in the sciences is: "Correlation does not necessarily imply causation."

Two things that show heavy correlation do indeed sometimes have a causational link. While correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation, it can be part of the evidence for causation.

And of course there are multiple lines of observed evidence for the reality of anthropogenic global warming. Climate scientists are not at all depending on statistical correlation to know that AGW is true, as you anti-science denier cult retards seem to imagine. I've already responded to your idiotic claim that there is no scientific evidence causally linking mankind's CO2 emissions to the current abrupt warming trend a number of times, like in post #135 of this thread but you are too much of retarded troll to admit that you were wrong and there is in fact a lot of good science linking the two. Remember, you moronic little dipshyt.....
Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

And now, the logical fallacy you're engaging in....

How To Argue
The New England Skeptical Society
(excerpts)

Confusing correlation with causation

This is similar to the post-hoc fallacy in that it assumes cause and effect for two variables simply because they occur together. This fallacy is often used to give a statistical correlation a causal interpretation. For example, during the 1990’s both religious attendance and illegal drug use have been on the rise. It would be a fallacy to conclude that therefore, religious attendance causes illegal drug use. It is also possible that drug use leads to an increase in religious attendance, or that both drug use and religious attendance are increased by a third variable, such as an increase in societal unrest. It is also possible that both variables are independent of one another, and it is mere coincidence that they are both increasing at the same time.

This fallacy, however, has a tendency to be abused, or applied inappropriately, to deny all statistical evidence. In fact this constitutes a logical fallacy in itself, the denial of causation. This abuse takes two basic forms. The first is to deny the significance of correlations that are demonstrated with prospective controlled data, such as would be acquired during a clinical experiment. The problem with assuming cause and effect from mere correlation is not that a causal relationship is impossible, it’s just that there are other variables that must be considered and not ruled out a-priori. A controlled trial, however, by its design attempts to control for as many variables as possible in order to maximize the probability that a positive correlation is in fact due to a causation.

Further, even with purely epidemiological, or statistical, evidence it is still possible to build a strong scientific case for a specific cause. The way to do this is to look at multiple independent correlations to see if they all point to the same causal relationship. For example, it was observed that cigarette smoking correlates with getting lung cancer. The tobacco industry, invoking the “correlation is not causation” logical fallacy, argued that this did not prove causation. They offered as an alternate explanation “factor x”, a third variable that causes both smoking and lung cancer. But we can make predictions based upon the smoking causes cancer hypothesis. If this is the correct causal relationship, then duration of smoking should correlate with cancer risk, quitting smoking should decrease cancer risk, smoking unfiltered cigarettes should have a higher cancer risk than filtered cigarettes, etc. If all of these correlations turn out to be true, which they are, then we can triangulate to the smoking causes cancer hypothesis as the most likely possible causal relationship and it is not a logical fallacy to conclude from this evidence that smoking probably causes lung cancer.

Thanks for the excellent post.

I believe that they think that science means:

Always be skeptical, even if the evidence shows there's no reason for your skepticism

....

Is there scientific evidence that the warming is significantly caused by man made CO2?

Surely, you'll post that scientific evidence and put this silliness to rest immediately.

.... and, as you said, "Correlation is not causation".

As if when two things are correlated, scientists immediately ignore the correlation and go off in some other directions.

Really? Scientists do that? Are you a scientist? Is that what you do?

 

[SAT]

I have quoted the EPA several times. I also directed you to read the bullet points under "What's Known". What is it that greenhouse gases tend to do?

I also quoted a poster. You don't make climate change go away by being annoying.

I'm sorry I'm annoying you. That is not my intent.

Yet, and as I said, as I say, and as I keep repeating because the 'believers' WANT so hard to believe, that says nothing about the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

Pissing in the ocean tends to raise its alkalinity.

The state of the science does not allow for ANY conclusion about the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

And, correlation is not causation, either.

The state of the science allows climatologists to make some statements with virtual certainty.
State of Knowledge | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

Under "What's Known", there are five statements that build on each other.

These things are known to a virtual certainty.

That means that to argue them is to be foolish. It's like "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Regarding "correlation is not causation"

1) correlation is something that scientists look at for causation. You are saying it as if correlation never means anything. Another poster gave you an excellent rebuttal on that, and you ignored it.

2) Scientists are not relying solely on causation. They are also relying on what they known about greenhouse gasses and how they act in the atmosphere.

 

[westwall]

you dumb fuck. Lol. The 400-800 year lag in temperture rise was during the warmup 14,000 years ago, and is well explained by science. It has nothing whatever to do with anybodies hockey stick graph. Are you ever going to research something before you flap yap? Silly question.

wrong!

 

[gslack]

Told ya hes a konradv clone... I can smell them a mile away.. it smells of hair gel and clearasil every time he makes a new one... He can change his name and his arguments but his style remains the same. Notice he gets perpetually more ignorant with each post? Soon he will break down into calling you a dummy-dumb-head and stomp off..

 

[SAT]

Told ya hes a konradv clone... I can smell them a mile away.. it smells of hair gel and clearasil every time he makes a new one... He can change his name and his arguments but his style remains the same. Notice he gets perpetually more ignorant with each post? Soon he will break down into calling you a dummy-dumb-head and stomp off..

You need to stop saying this. It's wrong, and it's beside the point. Please check with an administrator for verification.

 

[Si modo]

I have quoted the EPA several times. I also directed you to read the bullet points under "What's Known". What is it that greenhouse gases tend to do?

I also quoted a poster. You don't make climate change go away by being annoying.

I'm sorry I'm annoying you. That is not my intent.

Yet, and as I said, as I say, and as I keep repeating because the 'believers' WANT so hard to believe, that says nothing about the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

Pissing in the ocean tends to raise its alkalinity.

The state of the science does not allow for ANY conclusion about the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

And, correlation is not causation, either.

The state of the science allows climatologists to make some statements with virtual certainty.
State of Knowledge | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

....

Ummmm, that's not science. If you want to demonstrate that the state of the science is at the point where a conclusion about the main causation of any warming, post the SCIENCE.

Do you even know what I am asking for?

.... Under "What's Known", there are five statements that build on each other.

These things are known to a virtual certainty.

That means that to argue them is to be foolish. It's like "beyond a reasonable doubt".

....

And, not one of those bullet points has anything to do with the causation of the warming.

"Tending" to do something makes no statement about the significance and/or magnitude.

As I said, pissing in the ocean also tends to increase the alkalinity of the ocean. That's a fact.

However, the significance and magnitude of that change is nothing.

I hope that is clear.

These are not complicated concepts.

.... Regarding "correlation is not causation"

1) correlation is something that scientists look at for causation. You are saying it as if correlation never means anything. Another poster gave you an excellent rebuttal on that, and you ignored it.

....

Where did I say correlation never means anything?

(Don't bother looking, I didn't say that.)

You should read what is written, not what you THINK is written.

..... 2) Scientists are not relying solely on causation. They are also relying on what they known about greenhouse gasses and how they act in the atmosphere.

Uh huh.

Your point?

 

[westwall]

I'm sorry I'm annoying you. That is not my intent.

Yet, and as I said, as I say, and as I keep repeating because the 'believers' WANT so hard to believe, that says nothing about the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

Pissing in the ocean tends to raise its alkalinity.

The state of the science does not allow for ANY conclusion about the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

And, correlation is not causation, either.

The state of the science allows climatologists to make some statements with virtual certainty.
State of Knowledge | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

....

Ummmm, that's not science. If you want to demonstrate that the state of the science is at the point where a conclusion about the main causation of any warming, post the SCIENCE.

Do you even know what I am asking for?



And, not one of those bullet points has anything to do with the causation of the warming.

"Tending" to do something makes no statement about the significance and/or magnitude.

As I said, pissing in the ocean also tends to increase the alkalinity of the ocean. That's a fact.

However, the significance and magnitude of that change is nothing.

I hope that is clear.

These are not complicated concepts.

.... Regarding "correlation is not causation"

1) correlation is something that scientists look at for causation. You are saying it as if correlation never means anything. Another poster gave you an excellent rebuttal on that, and you ignored it.

....

Where did I say correlation never means anything?

(Don't bother looking, I didn't say that.)

You should read what is written, not what you THINK is written.

..... 2) Scientists are not relying solely on causation. They are also relying on what they known about greenhouse gasses and how they act in the atmosphere.

Uh huh.

Your point?

No, he doesn't get it. He will never get it, his faith is too fundamental, I wonder if he's a member of Westboro Baptist Church? He has that robotic response they all have.

 

[gslack]

Told ya hes a konradv clone... I can smell them a mile away.. it smells of hair gel and clearasil every time he makes a new one... He can change his name and his arguments but his style remains the same. Notice he gets perpetually more ignorant with each post? Soon he will break down into calling you a dummy-dumb-head and stomp off..

You need to stop saying this. It's wrong, and it's beside the point. Please check with an administrator for verification.

NOPE its my opinion based on what i see.. Its what i think you are, and matter of fact you telling me its besides the point makes it even stronger in my mind.. being a coward is lame, being a coward with multiple identities in a web forum is even worse... Not sure but I don't know of any rules against my opinion that you're a clone..

 

[Si modo]

The state of the science allows climatologists to make some statements with virtual certainty.
State of Knowledge | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

....

Ummmm, that's not science. If you want to demonstrate that the state of the science is at the point where a conclusion about the main causation of any warming, post the SCIENCE.

Do you even know what I am asking for?



And, not one of those bullet points has anything to do with the causation of the warming.

"Tending" to do something makes no statement about the significance and/or magnitude.

As I said, pissing in the ocean also tends to increase the alkalinity of the ocean. That's a fact.

However, the significance and magnitude of that change is nothing.

I hope that is clear.

These are not complicated concepts.

Where did I say correlation never means anything?

(Don't bother looking, I didn't say that.)

You should read what is written, not what you THINK is written.

..... 2) Scientists are not relying solely on causation. They are also relying on what they known about greenhouse gasses and how they act in the atmosphere.

Uh huh.

Your point?

No, he doesn't get it. He will never get it, his faith is too fundamental, I wonder if he's a member of Westboro Baptist Church? He has that robotic response they all have.

This is exactly why the ignorant need to keep their grimy little political fingers out of science.

Popper's philosophy was totally accepted by the scientific community to keep exactly this sort of shit out of science for exactly this reason.

Then we have the political hacks and the postmodern shits who attempt to soil it on a regular basis.

If one doesn't have the aptitude to understand even the elementary basics of the fundamental philosophy of science, they need to stay the fuck away from it for the good of science.

And, for the sake of their own pride, if they have any.

 

[SAT]

Ummmm, that's not science. If you want to demonstrate that the state of the science is at the point where a conclusion about the main causation of any warming, post the SCIENCE.

Do you even know what I am asking for?

I don't know what you mean. I think you're probably as mixed up on this as you are on everything else on this topic.

And, not one of those bullet points has anything to do with the causation of the warming.

Again, they do. The causation is the increasing amount of greenhouse gases, and the source of those gases is human activity.

"Tending" to do something makes no statement about the significance and/or magnitude.

As I said, pissing in the ocean also tends to increase the alkalinity of the ocean. That's a fact.

However, the significance and magnitude of that change is nothing.

Yes, you keep saying this, as if it made sense.

Your piss, and the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere are not close to the same.

Where did I say correlation never means anything?

You should read what is written, not what you THINK is written.

I suggest you take your own advice. I did not say that you said those words, I said that "you were saying it as if".

..... 2) Scientists are not relying solely on causation. They are also relying on what they known about greenhouse gasses and how they act in the atmosphere.

Uh huh. Your point?

...is clear. Scientists are not relying solely on causation. They are relying on a larger body of knowledge. This is why they say that these processes are well understood.