Mike Lorrey writes- PAY ATTENTION CLIMATE ALARMISTS:
“The phrase ‘correlation does not imply causation’ goes back to 1880 (according to Google Books). However, use of the phrase took off in the 1990s and 2000s, and is becoming a quick way to short-circuit certain kinds of arguments.
In the late 19th century, British statistician Karl Pearson introduced a powerful idea in math: that a relationship between two variables could be characterized according to its strength and expressed in numbers. An exciting concept, but it raised a new issue: how to interpret the data in a way that is helpful, rather than misleading. When we mistake correlation for causation, we find a cause that isn’t there, which is a problem. However, as science grows more powerful and government more technocratic, the stakes of correlation — of counterfeit relationships and bogus findings — grow larger.”
From Slashdot: The History of ‘Correlation Does Not Imply Causation’
==============================================================
From the Slate article referenced by Slashdot:
The graph below, again from Google Books, shows the shift in language that marked this change in spirit: Up until the early 1900s, causation showed up more often than correlation in the corpus; then the concepts flip. (I’ll let someone else explain why correlations have been trending downward since 1976.)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
When I studied Psychology twenty years ago it was anxious to be regarded as a ‘real’ science, and so we got an excellent grounding in scientific method. Amongst other things we were told never to use the word ’causes’ in a scientific paper where ‘correlates with’ was correct. Unfortunately it looks like some Psychology faculties have forgotten that useful lesson.
An old professor said to us undergraduates, “Boiled lobsters are red. Not everything that is red is a boiled lobster”.
The graph only supports that the term “correlation” became popular . Causation seems pretty constant, it did not pick up the slack after 1976. It is probably fashions in scientific and semi language.
that is “semi-scientific” in the last line.
Every day I that I go to work when I come home from work, my dog wants a treat.
Therefore, if I never went to work, my dog would never want a treat.
Or maybe if I never came home from work, my dog would never want a treat?
More reasearch funds are needed.
From Graph #1….”Correlation is not causation” is trending upward….
From Graph #2….”Causation” peaked in 1885…oscillatted briefly….trended downward in 2000….
“Correlation” overtook in 1900…peaked in 1976….rapid decline since….
Conclusion: We are approaching the happy 1800 era when there was NO causation and NO correlation….Ignorance is Bliss….Orwell would be happy….
The better term would be, “correlation does not prove causation”, because correlation can damn well be a strong enough clue to be suggestive of causation. CO2 and global temperature is a case in point. Specifically, it was proposed over 100 years ago that the contribution of CO2 rise to temperature increase can be estimated. The subsequent observed correlation of CO2 and global temperature is thus suggestive, but not proof, of causation.
What is important here is that at present no other parameter, such as solar or earth tilt, etc, correlates well with the observed rapid increase in global temperature.
That is the kicker, and so, although correlation does not prove causation:
If you hear hoofbeats, by all means keep looking for zebras, but smart money will be that you hear a horse.
Thomas T,
Yes, correlation is not causation. But when you look at this, you are forced to admit that the only correlation between CO2 and temperature is that temperature changes cause CO2 changes; not vice-versa. There is no empirical scientific evidence showing that changes in CO2 cause changes in temperature. Draw your own conclusions.
@ur momisugly corio37
“When I studied Psychology twenty years ago it was anxious to be regarded as a ‘real’ science, and so we got an excellent grounding in scientific method.”
Same when I studied it 45 years ago. That grounding in scientific method added to the grounding that high school science had given me, and included a fair chunk of statistics. I learnt two very important things.
1. Aspirations notwithstanding, psychology wasn’t a science.
2. Get a professional statistician to do the stats for you.
Oh Dear. A ‘Mann’ made Éruption Volcanique thus looms large and when ignited will issue for many weeks to come.
Tinfoil hat firmly attached, lead fused lab coat on, and now in the Level-B20 Lead-Lined bunker.
[Via the Radio Dispatch] “I have shorted the locks. The doors are now sealed. I’ll remain here and keep recording the events for as long as possible.
Later, you will eventually be able to retrieve all the tapes from the vault.
For now I wish you, God Speed. Make Haste as you have little time.
As you exit the research facility through the hills look to the east. A New Moon is about to be born and you will witness that event.
As for me …. I did all that I could; History will show that. Signing Off.” [/Via the Radio Dispatch]
XD
It appears the time series selected is differing between graphs.
D. Boehm, consider feedback mechanisms before you force yourself to conclude. If you do so, then your pressure on yourself will evaporate.
Causation is much more difficult to prove. Everything is related. Similarities abound. Trends and characteristics overlap. Slopes can be equal. Correlation is everywhere. Lobsters are red and so are apples (unless they are green and then they correlate with grass.) Apples do not grow in the ocean, but to the untrained eye, they correlate with boiled lobsters. It’s arguable that they correlate because the similar color results from exposure to heat, but . . . .Oh, never mind.
Repeat: Causation is much more difficult to prove.
Forgive me, but the conclusion that increases in the trace gas CO2 are responsible for the slight increase in heat we’ve experienced over the past 100 years because establishment climate scientists refuse to vigorously explore (and disprove) other possible causes should be offensive to anyone who respects the scientific method.
Thomas T,
Positive feedbacks have been falsified by Planet Earth; the ultimate Authority. Believe what you want, it isn’t reality. CO2=CAGW is a debunked fantasy.
What is important here is that at present no other parameter, such as solar or earth tilt, etc, correlates well with the observed rapid increase in global temperature.
What temperature causes CO2 increases? The whole deck of cards comes tumbling down.
Correlation should not even imply causation. Especially if your “proof” is the “I can’t think of anything else” type argument.
At the best it is, as I tell my students, “consistent with”.
Thomas T:
So if Variable 1 and Variable 2 are correlated, and change in Variable 1 occurs before change in Variable 2, what can you conclude?
(Hint: Variable 1 is NOT CO2 concentraion, Variable 2 is NOT Temperature.)
D. Boehm: but CO2=.10XAGW (or something like) is still a possibility.
Thomas T says:
October 2, 2012 at 8:53 pm
The better term would be, “correlation does not prove causation”, because correlation can damn well be a strong enough clue to be suggestive of causation. CO2 and global temperature is a case in point. Specifically, it was proposed over 100 years ago that the contribution of CO2 rise to temperature increase can be estimated. The subsequent observed correlation of CO2 and global temperature is thus suggestive, but not proof, of causation.
What is important here is that at present no other parameter, such as solar or earth tilt, etc, correlates well with the observed rapid increase in global temperature.
That is the kicker, and so, although correlation does not prove causation:
If you hear hoofbeats, by all means keep looking for zebras, but smart money will be that you hear a horse.
==============================================================
Whether you probably hear a zebra or a horse or a bison depends on where you live or where you are in the zoo.
“What is important here is that at present no other parameter, such as solar or earth tilt, etc, correlates well with the observed rapid increase in global temperature.”
Really? “Rapid increase in global temperature”? Where were these measuring devices sited? Has anything happened since they were set that might bias there records? Has any bias entered in that has influenced what numbers have actually been enter and/or altered in the records? Temperatures don’t correlate with what the Sun has been up to? How about El Nino and La Nina? (Check out Tisdale’s work.)
PS Please define just how “rapid” and just how much of an “increase” has occured and where it occured and over what period of time.
PSPS Are you a member of the BBSB?
“If the Washington Redskins win their last home game before the election, the incumbent party retains the White House. Otherwise, the out-of-power party wins.
This pattern has failed only once since 1940, though which year it failed is something of a debate on Wikipedia, depending whether one honors a retroactive change to the rule to recognize the winner of the popular vote.”
http://news.yahoo.com/your-nfl-team-can-predict-the-election.html
Sounds like warmists arguing correlation implying causation…
++++++++++++++++
If Denver rushes for more than 106 yards in its fifth game of the season, the incumbent party wins. Otherwise, the out-of-power party wins. This rule has held for every election since the Denver Broncos’ first season in 1960.
Here is the Patriots Rule, true for 12 of the past 13 elections: If New England commits fewer turnovers than its opponent in the team’s first away game, the out-of-power party will win the White House. Otherwise, the incumbent party wins.
{ONE FOR EACH TEAM)
Saving the cardiac cards for last… the Cardinals Rule: If Arizona averages more than 18.2 yards per first down in its fifth-to-last game before the election, the out-of-power party wins. Otherwise, the incumbent party retains the White House. {17 out of 17)
This Thursday: at St. Louis on Oct. 4
GO CARDS or GO HOME
“One of the largest-ever studies of retractions has found that two-thirds of retracted life-sciences papers were stricken from the scientific record because of misconduct such as fraud or suspected fraud — and that journals sometimes soft-pedal the reason. The study contradicts the conventional view that most retractions of papers in scientific journals are triggered by unintentional errors. The survey examined all 2,047 articles in the PubMed database that had been marked as retracted by 3 May this year. But rather than taking journals’ retraction notices at face value, as previous analyses have done, the study used secondary sources to pin down the reasons for retraction if the notices were incomplete or vague. The analysis revealed that fraud or suspected fraud was responsible for 43% of the retractions. Other types of misconduct — duplicate publication and plagiarism — accounted for 14% and 10% of retractions, respectively. Only 21% of the papers were retracted because of error (abstract).”
http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/10/02/180226/misconduct-not-error-is-the-main-cause-of-scientific-retractions
I wrote: D. Boehm: but CO2=.10XAGW (or something like) is still a possibility.
Make that CO2=.10xGW
Thomas T,
Before humans became a factor, temperature variations an order of magnitude larger than what we’ve seen in the recent century occurred. Until scientists develop a model that can generate such changes without human influence (i.e. CO2), it’s clear that the models are neglecting some unknown effects….
establishment climate scientists refuse to vigorously explore (and disprove) other possible causes
Name an establishment scientist that has refused to explore and disprove other possible causes. And once you name them, what is your evidence?
Oh gimme a break.
Pick up a book that was written in the early 1800’s. You’ll find words in it that were common then and all but abandoned now. You’ll find common phrases that are no longer in use. You’ll find styles of expression that were the way regular folks talked that seem quaint or odd or stilted today. Anyone get to the saloon for a tipple lately? Anyone in 1820 mention renting a video and picking up some microwave popcorn?
If “link” or “connection” or “association” or any number of other words were commonly used instead of “correlation” at various points in time, you’d esentially be getting a false negative because they were excluded from the search. Were they? I haven’t a clue.
But language evolves over time and any study of terminology use that ignores that fact is just meaningless.
I was warned about this fallacy by my Stats teacher who pointed out that when temporal and spatial measurements were taken into account it’s trivial to prove that, in England, churches cause pubs.