Global warming, my ass!

[Crick]

Correlation does not infer Causation....

That bullshit has gone just about far enough. You might certainly say that correlation does not PROVE causation but...

CORRELATION
noun
1.
mutual relation of two or more things, parts, etc.:
Studies find a positive correlation between severity of illness andnutritional status of the patients.
Synonyms: similarity, correspondence, matching; parallelism, equivalence; interdependence, interrelationship, interconnection.
2.
the act of correlating or state of being correlated.
3.
Statistics. the degree to which two or more attributes ormeasurements on the same group of elements show a tendency tovary together.
4.
Physiology. the interdependence or reciprocal relations of organs orfunctions.
5.
Geology. the demonstrable equivalence, in age or lithology, of two ormore stratigraphic units, as formations or members of such.

INFER
verb (used with object), inferred, inferring.
1.
to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence:
They inferred his displeasure from his cool tone of voice.
2.
(of facts, circumstances, statements, etc.) to indicate or involve as aconclusion; lead to.
3.
to guess; speculate; surmise.
4.
to hint; imply; suggest.

CAUSATION
noun
1.
the action of causing or producing.
2.
the relation of cause to effect; causality.
3.
anything that produces an effect; cause.

FOR FUCK'S SAKE, learn some English, you stupid, lying sack of shit.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Westchester NY. Heat in the house came on this morning. Spring long global cooling keeps temperatures in the 30's

Westchester NY. Heat in the house came on this morning. Spring long global cooling keeps temperatures in the 30's

See post 5 in this thread!

Warming = Global warming
Cooling = Climate Change
Consensus = Moonbat

 

[Billy_Bob]

Correlation does not infer Causation....

That bullshit has gone just about far enough. You might certainly say that correlation does not PROVE causation but...

CORRELATION
noun
1.
mutual relation of two or more things, parts, etc.:
Studies find a positive correlation between severity of illness andnutritional status of the patients.
Synonyms: similarity, correspondence, matching; parallelism, equivalence; interdependence, interrelationship, interconnection.
2.
the act of correlating or state of being correlated.
3.
Statistics. the degree to which two or more attributes ormeasurements on the same group of elements show a tendency tovary together.
4.
Physiology. the interdependence or reciprocal relations of organs orfunctions.
5.
Geology. the demonstrable equivalence, in age or lithology, of two ormore stratigraphic units, as formations or members of such.

INFER
verb (used with object), inferred, inferring.
1.
to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence:
They inferred his displeasure from his cool tone of voice.
2.
(of facts, circumstances, statements, etc.) to indicate or involve as aconclusion; lead to.
3.
to guess; speculate; surmise.
4.
to hint; imply; suggest.

CAUSATION
noun
1.
the action of causing or producing.
2.
the relation of cause to effect; causality.
3.
anything that produces an effect; cause.

FOR FUCK'S SAKE, learn some English, you stupid, lying sack of shit.

Poor left wing retards...

Correlation does not infer causation:

The lying left wing sycophants have shown they can make anything "correlate" by graphing manipulations. This is the kind of bastardization of science that allows charlatans and liars to make bold pronouncements without a shred of fact.

I laugh each time a left-wing nut bag warmer tells me that their models can never be falsified... this tells me that they are not doing science because they have abandoned science for political agenda.

 

[Crick]

God, you are so stupid it just beggars belief. Correlation DOES INFER causation. It SUGGESTS causation. It SUPPORTS causation. It is EVIDENCE of causation. The only thing it doesn't do is PROVE causation.

Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid...

 

[kiwiman127]

All you global warming ding bats...I want you to take a good look at this weather map. Then tell me, with a straight face, that global warming is real. It isnt. Just step outside and you'll see what I mean.
View attachment 186708

Unsurprisingly, another ignorant thread by someone, who should try harder to get their GED.
Never heard of La Nina? Figures.

 

[Sunsettommy]

God, you are so stupid it just beggars belief. Correlation DOES INFER causation. It SUGGESTS causation. It SUPPORTS causation. It is EVIDENCE of causation. The only thing it doesn't do is PROVE causation.

Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid...

No Correlation DOES NOT imply Causation!

From Wikipedia

"In statistics, many statistical tests calculate correlations between variables and when two variables are found to be correlated, it is tempting to assume that this shows that one variable causes the other.[1][2] That "correlation proves causation," is considered a questionable cause logical fallacy when two events occurring together are taken to have established a cause-and-effect relationship. This fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "with this, therefore because of this," and "false cause." A similar fallacy, that an event that followed another was necessarily a consequence of the first event, is the post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "after this, therefore because of this.") fallacy."

You are so far off on this.......................

 

[CrusaderFrank]

God, you are so stupid it just beggars belief. Correlation DOES INFER causation. It SUGGESTS causation. It SUPPORTS causation. It is EVIDENCE of causation. The only thing it doesn't do is PROVE causation.

Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid...

^ Not Science

 

[harmonica]

I like global warming

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Number of repeatable lab experiments showing temperature increase from 120 PPM increase in CO2: Zero

Correlation suggests that a 120PPM increase in CO2 is not the causation of any temperature increase

 

[Sunsettommy]

Number of repeatable lab experiments showing temperature increase from 120 PPM increase in CO2: Zero

Correlation suggests that a 120PPM increase in CO2 is not the causation of any temperature increase

Almost all the warming since 1979 are due to El-Nino phases, very little left for CO2 to do.

 

[Crick]

God, you are so stupid it just beggars belief. Correlation DOES INFER causation. It SUGGESTS causation. It SUPPORTS causation. It is EVIDENCE of causation. The only thing it doesn't do is PROVE causation.

Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid...

No Correlation DOES NOT imply Causation!

From Wikipedia

"In statistics, many statistical tests calculate correlations between variables and when two variables are found to be correlated, it is tempting to assume that this shows that one variable causes the other.[1][2] That "correlation proves causation," is considered a questionable cause logical fallacy when two events occurring together are taken to have established a cause-and-effect relationship. This fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "with this, therefore because of this," and "false cause." A similar fallacy, that an event that followed another was necessarily a consequence of the first event, is the post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "after this, therefore because of this.") fallacy."

You are so far off on this.......................

My argument has always been, and this is posted here, that causation does not exist without correlation. For that portion of the space in which one IS the cause of the other, correlation will be exhibited. It is not meaningless, as you would like to make us believe.

 

[Sunsettommy]

God, you are so stupid it just beggars belief. Correlation DOES INFER causation. It SUGGESTS causation. It SUPPORTS causation. It is EVIDENCE of causation. The only thing it doesn't do is PROVE causation.

Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid...

No Correlation DOES NOT imply Causation!

From Wikipedia

"In statistics, many statistical tests calculate correlations between variables and when two variables are found to be correlated, it is tempting to assume that this shows that one variable causes the other.[1][2] That "correlation proves causation," is considered a questionable cause logical fallacy when two events occurring together are taken to have established a cause-and-effect relationship. This fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "with this, therefore because of this," and "false cause." A similar fallacy, that an event that followed another was necessarily a consequence of the first event, is the post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "after this, therefore because of this.") fallacy."

You are so far off on this.......................

My argument has always been, and this is posted here, that causation does not exist without correlation. For that portion of the space in which one IS the cause of the other, correlation will be exhibited. It is not meaningless, as you would like to make us believe.

Ha ha. you didn't bother to read the statement from Wikipedia which make clear that YOU like to dabble with fallacies. Causation can indeed exist without correlation, as shown here:

Clearing up confusion between correlation and causation

From the Conversation
"Here’s an historical tidbit you may not be aware of. Between the years 1860 and 1940, as the number of Methodist ministers living in New England increased, so too did the amount of Cuban rum imported into Boston – and they both increased in an extremely similar way. Thus, Methodist ministers must have bought up lots of rum in that time period!

Actually no, that’s a silly conclusion to draw. What’s really going on is that both quantities – Methodist ministers and Cuban rum – were driven upwards by other factors, such as population growth."

 

[Crick]

From your own Wikipedia article

Much of scientific evidence is based upon a correlation of variables[20] – they are observed to occur together. Scientists are careful to point out that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The assumption that A causes B simply because A correlates with B is often not accepted as a legitimate form of argument.

However, sometimes people commit the opposite fallacy – dismissing correlation entirely. This would dismiss a large swath of important scientific evidence.[20] Since it may be difficult or ethically impossible to run controlled double-blind studies, correlational evidence from several different angles may be useful for prediction despite failing to provide evidence for causation. For example, social workers might be interested in knowing how child abuse relates to academic performance. Although it would be unethical to perform an experiment in which children are randomly assigned to receive or not receive abuse, researchers can look at existing groups using a non-experimental correlational design. If in fact a negative correlation exists between abuse and academic performance, researchers could potentially use this knowledge of a statistical correlation to make predictions about children outside the study who experience abuse, even though the study failed to provide causal evidence that abuse decreases academic performance. [21] The combination of limited available methodologies with the dismissing correlation fallacy has on occasion been used to counter a scientific finding. For example, the tobacco industry has historically relied on a dismissal of correlational evidence to reject a link between tobacco and lung cancer,[22] as did biologist and statistician Ronald Fisher.[23][24][25][26][27][28][29]

References

20: Novella. "Evidence in Medicine: Correlation and Causation". Science and Medicine. Science-Based Medicine.
21: Nielsen, Michael (2012-01-23). "If correlation doesn't imply causation, then what does? | DDI". Michaelnielsen.org. Retrieved 2017-10-08.
22: "Evidence in Medicine: Correlation and Causation – Science-Based Medicine". Sciencebasedmedicine.org. 2009-11-18. Retrieved 2017-10-08.
23: Silver, Nate (2015), The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail – But Some Don't (2nd ed.), New York: Penguin Books, pp. 254–255
24: Fisher, Ronald (July 6, 1957), "Dangers Of Cigarette-Smoking", The British Medical Journal, London: British MedicalAssociation, 2 :43, doi:10.1136/bmj.2.5035.43, JSTOR 25383068 – via JSTOR, (Registration required (help))
25: Fisher, Ronald (August 3, 1957), "Dangers Of Cigarette-Smoking", The British Medical Journal, London: British Medical Association, 2: 297–298, doi:10.1136/bmj.2.5039.297-b, JSTOR 25383439 – via JSTOR, (Registration required (help))
26: Fisher, Ronald (1958), "Cigarettes, Cancer, and Statistics"(PDF), The Centennial Review of Arts & Science, East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University Press, 2: 151–166
27: Fisher, Ronald (1958), "The Nature of Probability" (PDF), The Centennial Review of Arts & Science, East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University Press, 2: 261–274
28: Fisher, Ronald (July 12, 1958), "Lung Cancer and Cigarettes" (PDF), Nature, London: Nature Publishing Group, 182: 108, doi:10.1038/182108a0
29: Fisher, Ronald (August 30, 1958), "Cancer and Smoking"(PDF), Nature, London: Nature Publishing Group, 182: 596, doi:10.1038/182596a0

 

[Crick]

You smoke?

 

[Sunsettommy]

You smoke?

Do you think?

From your post #153,

"Scientists are careful to point out that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The assumption that A causes B simply because A correlates with B is often not accepted as a legitimate form of argument."

Meanwhile the very FIRST heading and paragraph of the Wikipedia source you seem to be trying to ignore:

Correlation does not imply causation

"In statistics, many statistical tests calculate correlations between variables and when two variables are found to be correlated, it is tempting to assume that this shows that one variable causes the other.[1][2] That "correlation proves causation," is considered a questionable cause logical fallacy when two events occurring together are taken to have established a cause-and-effect relationship. This fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "with this, therefore because of this," and "false cause." A similar fallacy, that an event that followed another was necessarily a consequence of the first event, is the post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "after this, therefore because of this.") fallacy."

You are a truly stupid man!

 

[Crick]

I have to disagree with their use of the word "imply". I have said repeatedly that it does not prove causation, but the odds of causation go up significantly with the existence of correlation and, as I said, causation will always create correlation. As YOUR article told you, dismissing correlation entirely, particularly in instances in which a double-blind experiment is not possible (like, a climate study, for instance) is itself a FALLACY.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Still

No

Lab

Work

At least with tobacco, they made nice smoke, why doesn't the AGW Cult have one single experiment

 

[Crick]

So, do you reject tobacco causing lung cancer?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Science has lab work, cults have consensus

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How much lab work was done on tobacco? Lots

How much lab work was done on manmade global climate warming change? None