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.
Continuing with the “NFL predicts presidential election theme” above…
So you put all team predictors into a climate model with each having excellent correlation factors (only 7 failures out of 32 predictors at approximately 10 samples per). This thing should be fail proof. But can it predict this years election?
“Four rules were decided in the past week. The Bears Rule and the Titans Rule point to an Obama win, while the Bills Rule and the Buccaneers Rule point to a Romney win. The score is now 9-4 in Mitt Romney’s favor.”
Already four to nine failures out of 13 predictions. When the last 65 years had a total of only 7 failures. Whats going wrong this year?
For the umpteenth time, absent chance (coincidence), correlation is proof of causation. It’s just that correlation between A and B isn’t proof that A causes B, which is the fallacy.
Wikipedia has a good summary,
The cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical (correlation proves causation) fallacy can be expressed as follows:
A occurs in correlation with B.
Therefore, A causes B.
In this type of logical fallacy, one makes a premature conclusion about causality after observing only a correlation between two or more factors. Generally, if one factor (A) is observed to only be correlated with another factor (B), it is sometimes taken for granted that A is causing B, even when no evidence supports it. This is a logical fallacy because there are at least five possibilities:
A may be the cause of B.
B may be the cause of A.
some unknown third factor C may actually be the cause of both A and B.
there may be a combination of the above three relationships. For example, B may be the cause of A at the same time as A is the cause of B (contradicting that the only relationship between A and B is that A causes B). This describes a self-reinforcing system.
the “relationship” is a coincidence or so complex or indirect that it is more effectively called a coincidence (i.e. two events occurring at the same time that have no direct relationship to each other besides the fact that they are occurring at the same time). A larger sample size helps to reduce the chance of a coincidence, unless there is a systematic error in the experiment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
So, is the point of the graph that the use of the word “correlation” has caused global warming and, with a five year or so lag, the cooling trend of the 2000’s? I guess Ronald Reagan’s saying, “Words have Consequences,” was more accurate than we thought.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/tim_tsi_reconstruction_2012.jpeg
Thomas T says:
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.
No. “Correlation does not prove causation” is a fine alternative wording, but the strength of a correlation does not have a damn thing to do with whether or not causation is also involved.
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.
No. What is important here is that right under your “Correlation does not prove causation” sign, you need to pencil in “And ignorance doesn’t prove anything.”
That is the kicker,…
It is not a kicker. It is a logical fallacy. A variant of argumentum ad ignorantiam.
@theduke “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”
You really don’t understand the meaning of “correlation” do you. !!!
@Phillip “( two events occurring at the same time that have no direct relationship to each other besides the fact that they are occurring at the same time)”
And in the case of CO2 and global average (urban) land temperature, this ONLY happened for a period between 1976ish and 1998ish…
which ALSO happened to coincide with massive urbanisation in many areas where land thermometers were located.
Now that they are being more careful with land temp calcs (because they are being watched) and satellite temps are now accepted, the coincidence of CO2 and temperature increases has DISAPPEARED !!
Thomas T says:
October 2, 2012 at 10:03 pm
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?
——————————————————————-
All of them. Cite a paper where someone associated with the IPCC has attempted to explore other possible causes for global warming than man-made CO2. Better yet, cite a paper that questions the orthodoxy that CO2 is the cause of AGW. Cite a paper that proves that causation and not correlation validates the theory of CO2 induced AGW.
They decided a priori a long time ago that CO2 was the cause based on extrapolating a century-old theory. They haven’t bothered to prove it, because they’ve gotten away with relying on correlation.
Junk science.
Thomas T wrote: “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.”
So you want governments around the world to spend (or cause people to spend) trillions of dollars because you believe you have a “strong enough clue to be suggestive of causation?”
That sounds “damn well” stupid to me.
Robin Melville says:
“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.”
Robin, you have the causality wrong way around 😉
Churches are built, to cope with the evil of pubs……… or maybe…
hmmmm this requires some more research.. …… funding please someone…
I’ll do the pub part of the research.
Gunga Din says:
October 2, 2012 at 8:49 pm
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.
………………
And if you prefaced your research grant request with “The effect of Climate Change on Canine Pavlovian responses” – the money would be yours.
Simple logic tables:
If A then B.
If B…what about A?
A may or may not be true.
Reblogged this on Standard Climate.
Let’s remember Richard Feynman: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0
Correlation is a statistical way to determine if experimental data fit with a theoretical model, and to compute a index of confidence for it.
But a theoretical model canot be deducted from a correlation:
– In the Northern Hemisphere chimneys are beginning to make more smoke in the Autumn.
– At this same time leaves are falling from the trees.
– There is a correlation between these two observations.
– Therefore: is smoke causing the falling of leaves?
Too many people make such mistakes because they don’t analyze all consequences implied by the theory that they expose.
Philip Bradley:
At October 2, 2012 at 10:29 pm you write
For the umpteenth time YOU ARE WRONG . Correlation proves nothing.
Any two time-series will correlate for some periods of the time if they are long enough.
Richard
Lack or correlation proves lack of causation.
That is what we should apply to CO2 and temperatures.
I remind you people that Pearson was talking about quantified variables, or so I understood.
Sorry, It should read. “Lack of correlation proves lack of causation”
Robin Melville says:
October 2, 2012 at 10:08 pm
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.
The reason is actually very simple.
The Bible tells us to thirst after righteousness!
Plot a graph of ice-cream sales over a year.
Plot a graph of swimming pool drownings over a year.
Ah, we seem to have a correlation- they both peak around August!
Now the burning question is- do ice-cream sales affect swimming pool drownings or vice-versa?
Hmmm……
As I’ve argued before, for the purposes of the scientific side of the climate debate, the “correlation does not necessarily imply causation” element of the fallacy is the most important one. Not only is there no empirical evidence to support the contention that anthropogenic GHG emissions control global temperatures; the graphs of the two phenomena don’t even line up. So I don’t understand why people are even looking for evidence (yes, that was a rhetorical statement; I understand why people are looking for evidence of a causal linkage between delta T and delta CO2 – but the reasons have nothing to do with science).
However, from the policy side of the climate debate, the inverse argument is more important, i.e., that non-correlation demonstrates non-causation, or in other words, if there is no statistically significant correlation between two phenomena, it is impossible to posit a causal relationship between them. The IPCC itself admits this by arguing that “temperature response” should “scale linearly with forcings”, of which the most important (in their opinion) is human GHG emissions. The crux of the debate, therefore, should hinge on the fact that there is no statistically significant correlation between change in CO2 concentration and change in temperature over any time period for which reliable temperature records and/or proxies exist – with (again, as I’ve mentioned before) the sole example of Antarctic ice core samples, which seem to demonstrate a correlation, but with delta T preceding delta CO2, thus implying that the former causes the latter rather than the inverse.
Moreover, and again from a policy perspective, if there is no statistically significant correlation between delta T and delta CO2, how can you design a policy to limit change in the former by constraining anthropogenic emissions of the latter? This basic question seems to keep getting lost in the manufactured (and totally irrelevant) furor over tenths of degrees.
I get older by 1 per year. CO2 goes up by 2 ppm per year.
Therefore my age determines CO2 ppm.
In 1974, CO2 was ~330 ppm. Thus, extrapolating out to when I’m 60 (2034), CO2 will be 450 ppm.
Correlation == causation! It’s worse than we thought since CO2 – Temps is another “correlation == causation”, that means temps will be ~3.2C higher than pre-Industrial in 2034!
BS!
Philip Bradley
Absent chance…or correlation the other way…or another causative agent, or any mixture of the three, ie absent everything else, so argumentum ad ignorantem in other words.
“Any two time-series will correlate for some periods of the time if they are long enough.”
And in the case of CO2 and temperature, a VERY SHORT 20 odd year period, with NO CORRELATION (negative in fact) between 1940-1970ish OR between 1998 and now.
so over the time that there has been any significant human CO2 release, the correlation has only been for about 1/3 of the time…. and these MORONS try to attribute causation.. DOH !!!!
sorry, I used “temperature”.. where I really meant “homogemnised NH Urban land temperature”
Gunga Din says:
October 2, 2012 at 8:49 pm
“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.”
Fess up; your dog has you well-trained ;o)