"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:yO6dnQpjFo90S1PbnZ2dnUVZ_o-mnZ2d@giganews.com...

Scout wrote:

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:qaSdnfvCJOnCqFHbnZ2dnUVZ_t-gnZ2d@giganews.com...

Scout wrote:

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Ff-dnYurAIz2XlfbnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@giganews.com...

elizabeth wrote:

On Aug 19, 8:46 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
snippity

Let put back what you evaded:

What in your mind would establish causation?

What difference does it make? This is an untestable hypothesis.

No, it's not.

You said it was.

"In the case of global climate change, it is impossible to
disprove causation
if there is correlation since there is no way to run control
experiments on a global scale."

Now, make up your mind. Is it untestable or not?

Non sequitur.

So it's impossible to disprove because it's impossible to test

It's impossible to run controlled experiments with limited inputs on
a global scale. Thus you cannot disprove causation. It is, however,
possible to test the hypothesis that increasing atmospheric
greenhouse gases will lead to increased temperature. This experiment
is running continuously.

Too bad that the Geological data, extending over millenia COUNTERS
this allegation

And that experiment has been "running continuously" for millenia
How exactly do a few decades compare to that ?
I suspect that you're getting excited about a blip that is the
equivalent of a flea-fart in the planet's context

but
you claim that doesn't make it an untestable hypothesis. Interesting
contradiction there, but then you are good at contradicting yourself
and a general lack of consistency in your arguements.

The only problem is that you don't understand. I've been over it a
hundred times with you. I am a scientist and I do statistical
analysis of experimental data all the time. An understanding of this
did not come overnight.

You on the other hand are a typical layperson with only the most
rudimentary understanding of statistics and science in general.
Don't feel bad. If you are a product of the American educational
system, you are not alone by a long shot.

Now there's an arrogant appeal to expertise
A loser's argument if ever there was one

That being said, to adequately explain this to you, I would have to
start at a fundamental level that I am not willing to do.

LOL
The old "trust me - I'm smarter and more expert on this subject
than you are. With the "it's far beneath me to educate you, because
you probablty won't understand anyway"

I'm sure you are really good at whatever you do. I know it's not
science.

You don't know *****

Damn, you are a complete ignoramus when it comes to science.

Yet, you are the one unable to tell me how causality is
scientifically established.

There is a well established correlation.

CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY
CAUSALITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Repeat as often as necessary until this fact sinks into your pea
brain.

OK...now what? Who cares?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt
the sound of an important concept going in one ear, out the other and
never slowing down while passing through geoff's brain...

Bubba you are claiming causality when you claim that the increasing in
various gases allegedly produced by humans is causing global warming
Clearly, you're supposed to care since that is what you are claiming

Apparently it's really just ***** and bafflegab on your part,
since you dont' care

This is the theory.

Cool, so if I find a correlation and advance a theory to explain it
then it the correlation continues as predicted then that proves the
theory????
*****!

The only ***** here is coming from you. If I've told you once,
I've told you a hundred times...no theory *ever* proves anything.
This is such a basic concept of science, yet you fail to grasp it.

Ah
Now you're hair-spliitng on the use of words

If so then my example of selling ice cream causes people to drown
would be established as a proven scientific theory.

Again. You fail to understand anything. Where do I start?

Try the beginning, then you'll be somewhat credible
Since you haven't even attempted to do so and instead fall back on
"appeals to authority" to claim that you know while others
don't,yourcredibility is NIL and will continue to remain so

The only option is to present a better theory.

Sorry, I don't have to present a better theory to tell you your
methodology of claiming a continueing correlation proves causality
set forth by some half whit theory.

Then this all boils down to an argument from incredulity.

Funny, coming from someone who is using an argument to authority to
avoid supporting his claim

You're right, we have NO REASON to believe that you have the
expertise you claim, since you have been UNABLE to demonstrate such
expertise so far

CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSALITY, and it doesn't matter how many
theories you advance this fact does NOT change.

You keep on saying that like I don't understand it. I do. You don't
have to say it any more. The problem is that you don't understand
how science deals with this issue.

It's not black magic bub
Both of my kids, who are under 10, understand the concept

So stop trying to dance around the fact that you're claim to
causality does NOT stand up to scrutiny
And does so even less AFTER NASA was forced to revise it's data set
SPECIFICALLY because of such scrutiny

This *in no way* implies that it is an untestable hypothesis.

Fine. Then let's test your theory. First you can establish a
reference planet Earth and an experimental planet Earth. Until you
can then don't tell me you can test it by the only method you've
presented which has any scientific basis.

How completely imbecilic. So until we can do controlled
experimentation on a global scale, we can't decide anything? That's
a great idea. Excuse me while I get my fiddle.

Go ahead and answer the question that I have asked you now *six*
times. What would satisfy you as far as establishing causation with
regards to global climate change?

Something that is scientifically valid. Not some ***** about how
a correlation shows causality because someone advanced a theory to
try to attach a causality to something that doesn't even imply
causality.

OK. Fine. Now be more specific. Please tell me and every other
scientist in the world what we are doing wrong. Tell us how we can
establish causation?

But hey, you're the guy who claims to be a knowledgeable scientist
That's YOUR job to do
So go to it

Geoff <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:yO6dnQpjFo90S1PbnZ2dnUVZ_o-mnZ2d@giganews.com...

Scout wrote:

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:qaSdnfvCJOnCqFHbnZ2dnUVZ_t-gnZ2d@giganews.com...

Scout wrote:

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Ff-dnYurAIz2XlfbnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@giganews.com...

elizabeth wrote:

On Aug 19, 8:46 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
snippity

Let put back what you evaded:

What in your mind would establish causation?

What difference does it make? This is an untestable hypothesis.

No, it's not.

You said it was.

"In the case of global climate change, it is impossible to disprove
causation
if there is correlation since there is no way to run control
experiments on a global scale."

Now, make up your mind. Is it untestable or not?

Non sequitur.

So it's impossible to disprove because it's impossible to test

It's impossible to run controlled experiments with limited inputs on a
global scale. Thus you cannot disprove causation. It is, however,
possible
to test the hypothesis that increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases will
lead to increased temperature. This experiment is running continuously.

but
you claim that doesn't make it an untestable hypothesis. Interesting
contradiction there, but then you are good at contradicting yourself
and a general lack of consistency in your arguements.

The only problem is that you don't understand. I've been over it a
hundred
times with you. I am a scientist and I do statistical analysis of
experimental data all the time. An understanding of this did not come
overnight.

You on the other hand are a typical layperson with only the most

rudimentary

understanding of statistics and science in general. Don't feel bad. If
you
are a product of the American educational system, you are not alone by a
long shot.

That being said, to adequately explain this to you, I would have to start

at

a fundamental level that I am not willing to do.

I'm sure you are really good at whatever you do. I know it's not science.

Damn, you are a complete ignoramus when it comes to science.

Yet, you are the one unable to tell me how causality is scientifically
established.

There is a well established correlation.

CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY
CAUSALITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Repeat as often as necessary until this fact sinks into your pea
brain.

OK...now what? Who cares?

This is the theory.

Cool, so if I find a correlation and advance a theory to explain it
then it the correlation continues as predicted then that proves the
theory????
*****!

The only ***** here is coming from you. If I've told you once, I've

told

you a hundred times...no theory *ever* proves anything. This is such a

basic

concept of science, yet you fail to grasp it.

If so then my example of selling ice cream causes people to drown
would be established as a proven scientific theory.

Again. You fail to understand anything. Where do I start?

The only option is to present a better theory.

Sorry, I don't have to present a better theory to tell you your
methodology of claiming a continueing correlation proves causality
set forth by some half whit theory.

Then this all boils down to an argument from incredulity.

CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSALITY, and it doesn't matter how many
theories you advance this fact does NOT change.

You keep on saying that like I don't understand it. I do. You don't have

to

say it any more. The problem is that you don't understand how science

deals

with this issue.

This *in no way* implies that it is an untestable hypothesis.

Fine. Then let's test your theory. First you can establish a reference
planet Earth and an experimental planet Earth. Until you can then
don't tell me you can test it by the only method you've presented
which has any scientific basis.

How completely imbecilic. So until we can do controlled experimentation
on

a

global scale, we can't decide anything? That's a great idea. Excuse me

while

I get my fiddle.

Go ahead and answer the question that I have asked you now *six*
times. What would satisfy you as far as establishing causation with
regards to global climate change?

Something that is scientifically valid. Not some ***** about how a
correlation shows causality because someone advanced a theory to try
to attach a causality to something that doesn't even imply causality.

OK. Fine. Now be more specific. Please tell me and every other scientist

in

the world what we are doing wrong. Tell us how we can establish
causation?

Well, maybe we could use SaPeIsMa's preferred proof, you know, wait a few
million and then examine the geological record to establish, without fear
of
contradiction, what actually happened?

You got a fiddle? Mind if I busk along on bass?

This may take some time.........

1) Corelation is NOT CAUSATION

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:qaSdnfvCJOnCqFHbnZ2dnUVZ_t-gnZ2d@giganews.com...

Scout wrote:

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Ff-dnYurAIz2XlfbnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@giganews.com...

elizabeth wrote:

On Aug 19, 8:46 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
snippity

Let put back what you evaded:

What in your mind would establish causation?

What difference does it make? This is an untestable hypothesis.

No, it's not.

You said it was.

"In the case of global climate change, it is impossible to disprove
causation
if there is correlation since there is no way to run control
experiments on a global scale."

Now, make up your mind. Is it untestable or not?

Non sequitur. Damn, you are a complete ignoramus when it comes to
science. There is a well established correlation. This is the
theory. The only option is to present a better theory.

1) Corelation is NOT CAUSATION
And you are claiming CAUSATION

2) Just because you have ONLY ONE theory does NOT make that theory
AUTOMATICALLY correct

This is even more true when the theory in question, does not
even estrablish anything approaching CAUSATION

This *in no way* implies that it is an untestable hypothesis.

Well until your hypothesis has been tested, and demonstrated to
consistently stand up to testing, it's stupid to act as if it were
correct

Go ahead and answer the question that I have asked you now *six*
times. What would satisfy you as far as establishing causation with
regards to global climate change?

A simple demonstration that there is causation
Presently the geological data shows that CO2 levels FOLLOW and NOT
PRECEDE Global Warming.

and this this response can occur over a
couple of centuries. This puts the lie to ANY CLAIM that CO2 levels
are causing global warming BECAUSE the data set proving the opposite
is far greater and more consistent So right now you need to:
1) present data that PROVES the opposite to existing geological
dataset

What a silly thing to say.

Then why did YOU say it?

That you are a scientific ignoramus is not my problem.

Well, he's not stupid to want to act on an untested and unsupported
hypothesis

The theory makes predictions.

I predict that ice cream causes people to drown and I can prove this
because next year as the sale of ice cream increases the number of
people who drown will increase. Thus a confirmation of my theory
proves that the theory advanced is true according to your standards.

Is this your best attempt at analogy? *****! Come up with something
*anything* new. I showed you already in this very thread how this
can be falsified.

But it isn't false
The data actually exists that shows that drownings corelate DIRECTLY
with ice cream sales

The other classic example is that since wet sidewalks and rain
correlate, wet sidewalks bring about rain

These are simple exercises used to teach the difference between
corelation and causation in statistical analysis 101 classes