4 ms·

> this really is just a bunch of correlations without good citations indicating any causal effect. Say your house gets broken into and there is a broken window

> this really is just a bunch of correlations without good citations indicating any causal effect. Say your house gets broken into and there is a broken window and you are missing some cash and jewellery. Would you _also_ say that calling it a burglary—absent any security camera footage—would be correlation without causation? I mean, for all we know it might have been a bear which broke in and just happened to take only money and jewellery. There might be a blinged out bear partying at the local bar nearby! It's easy to cast doubt on any theory, and much harder to advance a theory. Also I see that you did eventually find the citations, but the tone of your comments suggest to me that you might just as easily transpose your doubt casting onto the sources, and the sources sources ad infinitum... But of course my claim is based purely on correlations.

cube2222 4y ago
Some things are obvious, some things are less so. Nuance matters. > It's easy to cast doubt on any theory, and much harder to advance a theory. I agree. > Also I see that you did eventually find the citations, but the tone of your comments suggest to me that you might just as easily transpose your doubt casting onto the sources, and the sources sources ad infinitum... But of course my claim is based purely on correlations. I'm not sure why you're inferring that. I both believe in climate change and find the sources I've now seen good enough for my non-expert point of view. I'm casting doubt in an effort to improve the quality of the arguments, not to undermine climate change or its seriousness.