-
IPCC draw firm conclusions unjustified by the science, especially given the acknowledged weakness of cloud physics in the climate models. For example, even those who accept that there is a warming trend point out that there is a big difference between correlation and causality. In other words, just because temperatures have generally been rising since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, that doesn't necessarily mean that the Industrial Revolution has caused the change in temperature (see post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument). On the other hand, the period since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution has indeed produced ever-growing "urban heat islands" that could be skewing temperature measurements that indicate the recent warming.
-
support 0% · Re: causalitymoderated to 0%; argued down by 0%
by anonymous on 2008-02-11 07:23:00The hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change is not a product of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy because correlation of temperature trends to carbon emission is not merely observed and assumed to imply causation. The correlation is quantified, compared to other known correlations, and so far, is found to be the strongest correlation proposed. The claimed logical fallacy is defined, in the Wikipedia article mutually cited, as concluding causality based only on chronology. "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one." By comparing correlations of other proposed causes, this fallacy is avoided. If there is a better hypothesis for the cause of warming since the mid-1800's, it has not been identified yet. Academy affirms hockey-stick graph.
summary
title: 'Re: causality'
text: 'The hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change is not a product of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy because correlation of temperature trends to carbon emission is not merely observed and assumed to imply causation. The correlation is quantified, compared to other known correlations, and so far, is found to be the strongest correlation proposed. The claimed logical fallacy is defined, in the Wikipedia article mutually cited, as concluding causality based only on chronology. "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one." By comparing correlations of other proposed causes, this fallacy is avoided. If there is a better hypothesis for the cause of warming since the mid-1800's, it has not been identified yet. Academy affirms hockey-stick graph. '
tags:
date: 2008-02-11 07:23:00
submitter: anonymous
effective: 0
support: 0
oppose: 0
stancePos: 0
stanceNeg: 0
stanceEffective:
repliesSupport: 0
repliesOppose: 0
repliesTotal: 0
comments: 0
Powered by Debatepoint.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.