4 ms·

I encourage us to adopt clean energy and reusable resources either way. Please don't straw-man me without knowing my feelings on the matter. (I put this in the

I encourage us to adopt clean energy and reusable resources either way. Please don't straw-man me without knowing my feelings on the matter. (I put this in the edit above for clarification).

Loughla 13y ago
I didn't straw man your argument. I said that your statement that correlation does not imply causation, essentially, negates the previous statement that you aren't denying human caused global warming. That is a thing that you said. It's up there. I didn't fabricate anything. I didn't exaggerate. I didn't misrepresent. I asked you what would be the worst thing to happen if we tried to stop global warming. Then I told you to stop it; I would like to repeat that statement here, again. Stop it.
- gavanwoolery 13y ago
  "Correlation does not imply causation" is a neutral phrase. It neither confirms or denies global warming, it simply says you have to be careful when you evaluate any given data set. If temperatures were dropping, I'd say the same thing. The goal of science is not to prove what you believe in, it is to attempt to disprove your hypothesis (that is science 101). Even if I were arguing against AGW (which I am not), it is not really in the spirit of science to say "stop it."
  - gizmo 13y ago
    > "Correlation does not imply causation" is a neutral phrase. In scientific context it is neutral. In political context it absolutely isn't. For example, it's also the (ridiculous) argument used to argue that smoking doesn't cause cancer, or that you can't prove whether smoking causes cancer or whether cancer and smoking have a hidden shared cause. This became a fairly large debate in the 90s, even though the science is pretty one sided. If a scientific discussion can be derailed by arguments that are technically valid, that's a political problem. In the case of global warming scientists can still disagree among themselves (as good scientists should), but from a political perspective there's consensus science has been settled 30 or so years ago. It's real, it's caused by us and now action has to be taken. Truisms like "Correlation does not imply causation" in a political context just impede the political change we need.
- gfdgf546 13y ago
  Climate sensitivity is still not settled. Climate scientists still don't know the magnitude of human made warming. It's quite unsettling that anyone who debates climate science is told to STFU by people like you.
  - brc 13y ago
    I have tried to point out the fallibility of consensus and suggestions to actually look at the actual observed climate sensitivity throughout these comments. It seems that you cannot reason people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into, though I do see some glimmers of rational thinking and not just a whole pile of please shut up. Anyone who just graduated high school has not seen any 'global warming' since they started kindergarten. These facts don't seem to get mentioned a lot, but 'consensus' gets a whole lot of airing. It saddens me to see so much fashionable rather than rational thinking. Perhaps it is an artefact of information overload that people can't get to the nub of a debate and discuss it rationally.

I encourage us to adopt clean energy and reusable resources either way. Please don't straw-man me without knowing my feelings on the matter. (I put this in the edit above for clarification).

Loughla 13y ago

I didn't straw man your argument. I said that your statement that correlation does not imply causation, essentially, negates the previous statement that you aren't denying human caused global warming. That is a thing that you said. It's up there. I didn't fabricate anything. I didn't exaggerate. I didn't misrepresent. I asked you what would be the worst thing to happen if we tried to stop global warming. Then I told you to stop it; I would like to repeat that statement here, again. Stop it.

gavanwoolery 13y ago
"Correlation does not imply causation" is a neutral phrase. It neither confirms or denies global warming, it simply says you have to be careful when you evaluate any given data set. If temperatures were dropping, I'd say the same thing. The goal of science is not to prove what you believe in, it is to attempt to disprove your hypothesis (that is science 101). Even if I were arguing against AGW (which I am not), it is not really in the spirit of science to say "stop it."
- gizmo 13y ago
  > "Correlation does not imply causation" is a neutral phrase. In scientific context it is neutral. In political context it absolutely isn't. For example, it's also the (ridiculous) argument used to argue that smoking doesn't cause cancer, or that you can't prove whether smoking causes cancer or whether cancer and smoking have a hidden shared cause. This became a fairly large debate in the 90s, even though the science is pretty one sided. If a scientific discussion can be derailed by arguments that are technically valid, that's a political problem. In the case of global warming scientists can still disagree among themselves (as good scientists should), but from a political perspective there's consensus science has been settled 30 or so years ago. It's real, it's caused by us and now action has to be taken. Truisms like "Correlation does not imply causation" in a political context just impede the political change we need.
gfdgf546 13y ago
Climate sensitivity is still not settled. Climate scientists still don't know the magnitude of human made warming. It's quite unsettling that anyone who debates climate science is told to STFU by people like you.
- brc 13y ago
  I have tried to point out the fallibility of consensus and suggestions to actually look at the actual observed climate sensitivity throughout these comments. It seems that you cannot reason people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into, though I do see some glimmers of rational thinking and not just a whole pile of please shut up. Anyone who just graduated high school has not seen any 'global warming' since they started kindergarten. These facts don't seem to get mentioned a lot, but 'consensus' gets a whole lot of airing. It saddens me to see so much fashionable rather than rational thinking. Perhaps it is an artefact of information overload that people can't get to the nub of a debate and discuss it rationally.