posted November 11, 2013 11:18 PM            

We who, irrational one?

Without carbon dioxide in earth's atmosphere there would be little or no life on earth.

posted November 12, 2013 02:28 PM            

quote:

---

We who, irrational one?

---

Do you not understand context, Jwhop? We've been over Randall's really old excuse that correlation doesn't equal causation. Do you not remember? I thought you said that you have a better memory than I do, so why ask a dumb question?

quote:

---

They want to remove CO2 down to very low levels, which would result in a barren Earth. Thankfully, they can't succeed.

---

posted November 12, 2013 02:54 PM            

Although correlations allow us to predict, they do not prove a causal link. Low self-esteem positively correlates with depression; however, there are several possible explanations of this link. Low self-esteem could cause depression, or a traumatic event or genetics could cause both.

For men, the length of time they are married correlates positively with going bald. Does marriage cause baldness? It is more likely that advancing age is a better explanation for both factors. Just because two events are related does not mean one causes the other.

The correlation-causation fallacy is involved in many errors in human judgement, such as finding relationships when none exist.

Terms

extraneous variables

are variables other than the independent variable that may bear any effect on the behavior of the subject being studied. This only affects the people in the experiment, not the place the experiment is taking place in. Some examples are gender, ethnicity, social class, genetics, intelligence, age. A variable is extraneous only when it can be assumed to influence the dependent variable. It introduces noise but doesn't systematically bias the results.

Empirical evidence

is a way of gaining knowledge by means of direct and indirect observation or experience. Empirical evidence (the record of one's direct observations or experiences) can be analyzed quantitatively or qualitatively. Through quantifying the evidence or making sense of it in qualitative form, a researcher can answer empirical questions, which should be clearly defined and answerable with the evidence collected (usually called data). Research design varies by field and by the question being investigated. Many researchers combine qualitative and quantitative forms of analysis to better answer questions which cannot be studied in laboratory settings, particularly in the social sciences and in education.

It is important to note that "correlation does not imply causation." This conventional dictum means that correlation cannot be reliably and validly used to infer causal relationships between variables. Simply put, just because there is a relationship between two variables, does not necessarily mean that one variable causes the other. On the other hand, the saying should not be taken to mean that correlation cannot, in some cases, indicate a causal relationship. The causes underlying the correlation, if any, may be indirect and unknown.

Consequently, establishing a correlation between two variables is not a sufficient condition to establish a causal relationship (in either direction). For example, a correlation between age and height in children is fairly causally transparent, but a correlation between mood and health in people is less so. Does improved mood lead to improved health; or does good health lead to good mood; or both? Or does some other factor underlie both? Is it pure coincidence? In other words, a correlation can be taken as evidence for a possible causal relationship but cannot indicate what the causal relationship, if any, might be.

For example, numerous epidemiological studies showed that women who were taking combined hormone replacement therapy (HRT) also had a lower-than-average incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD), leading doctors to propose that HRT was protective against CHD. But randomized controlled trials showed that HRT caused a small but statistically significant increase in risk of CHD. Re-analysis of the data from the epidemiological studies showed that women undertaking HRT were more likely to be from higher socio-economic groups (ABC1), with better than average diet and exercise regimes. The use of HRT and decreased incidence of coronary heart disease were coincident effects of a common cause (i.e., the benefits associated with a higher socioeconomic status), rather than cause and effect as had been supposed.

Scientific research finds that people who use cannabis (A) have a higher prevalence of psychiatric disorders compared to those who do not (B). This particular correlation is sometimes used to support the theory that the use of cannabis causes a psychiatric disorder (A is the cause of B). Although this may be possible, we cannot automatically discern a cause and effect relationship from research that has only established that people who use cannabis are more likely to develop a psychiatric disorder. From the same research, it can also be the case that (1) having the predisposition for a psychiatric disorder causes these individuals to use cannabis (B causes A), or (2) it may also be the case that some unknown third factor (e.g., poverty) account for the higher number of people (compared to the general public) who both use cannabis and who have been diagnosed as having a psychiatric disorder. Alternatively, it may be that the effects of cannabis are found more pleasurable by persons with certain psychiatric disorders. To assume that A causes B is tempting; further scientific investigation that can isolate extraneous variables is needed when research has only determined a statistical correlation.

posted November 12, 2013 03:39 PM            

Critical thinking would embrace scientific knowledge. I keep telling you this, and you keep resisting to hear anything that you don't want to hear. You've straight-up admitted that you're close-minded on this, so, once again, trying to make me out as the non-thinker between us is a non-starter. I'm happy to be wrong. I just sincerely doubt you'll ever find the clarity to show me as wrong.

There's no need for a lesson on causation versus correlation. I already am well aware of the concept, and we've already discussed your want to believe that this is an area where you can gain some traction.

Greenhouse gases cause insulation sufficient for our planet's habitability, right? Now, if you were to add to these gases more of a couple insulating gases (CO2, methane released from the permafrost), what would YOU theorize would occur? Nothing? Why nothing? Now when greenhouse gases retain more warmth inside the atmosphere, what could be measured as a result? Less heat escaping to space, right? Right. Has that occurred? Yes. Therefore, we can certainly say that greenhouse gases cause warming. We can also certainly say that CO2 and methane are greenhouse gases. Therefore, by the Transitive Property of Equality (from math) we can know that CO2 causes warming. It is just an element in an equation, however, so other variables do have the potential to mitigate the warmth.

posted November 12, 2013 04:29 PM            

quote:

---

Yes, many people study the climate, and some are not in that concensus you speak of, and they also get published in scientific journals, which I have posted, but which you conveniently ignore.

---

You keep saying this, but it's not true of any recent time. Everything both you and Jwhop have posted recently has been tackled. I don't know how my tackling it constitutes my ignoring it. In fact, I think this statement constitutes yet another instance of you deflecting any responsibility for your ideas.

Jwhop brought up that very recent and timely study in hopes of dashing global warming. That was good. The more recent, the better as far as I'm concerned, because things are constantly evolving. The person doing the study, however, did not agree with his premise that her work necessarily blew apart the "theory" of manmade global warming. It was just an additional theory to throw into the mix.

quote:

---

The NOAA have financial reasons to keep the lie propogated,

---

posted November 12, 2013 08:28 PM            

quote:

---

The mountain of evidence is absolutely incredible

---

It's not. Even as evidenced by your cycling possibilities of what may be at play illustrates. Time and time again you come up short on science. In fact, I was thinking about it, and it's just conjecture after conjecture with you, and that's from your premises about me to the science of the climate to the conspiracy you've constantly alluded to.

You're not a person even trying to keep up in good faith. When it comes to your posts, you either dial it in using a tried and trumped reason for not believing the science, or you simply try to act like an authority. When it comes to responses to other posts, you never ever have a scientific rebuttal. You're never able to cut back against the grain of what's being said. You simply don't acknowledge, and move on to another talking point that you think might have relevance.

I imagine that should your predictions ever become fact, you'll believe yourself vindicated, and yet I don't believe science will back your simplistic, un-nuanced approach here. "I was right. I was right. AG was wrong...Now let me see which of the myriad reasonings I gave best matches what the science is saying now. I've had so many, I was bound to be at least tangentially right about something!"

Right? And then you'll finally be able to cite NOAA and NASA and all the rest, because finally the science will be aligned with your belief.

posted November 12, 2013 11:31 PM            

what an idiotic argument.

CO2..carbon dioxide is about 3% of the atmospheric greenhouse gas. Of that 3%, human production is about 3%. The major greenhouse gas is water vapor caused by evaporation from oceans, lakes and rivers, by solar radiation...about 97% of greenhouse gas in earth's atmosphere. Further, water vapor is about 25-30 times more efficient as a heat trap than CO2..carbon dioxide.