LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksOriginally Posted by ibis
Melbourne has a crazy climate. One day it is easily the coldest city in Australia and next day it is easily the warmest. It all depends on the air-mass from the rest of Australia which of course is 99% desert.
Melbourne has a crazy climate. One day it is easily the coldest city in Australia and next day it is easily the warmest. It all depends on the air-mass from the rest of Australia which of course is 99% desert.
While I believe in AGW, what we have here is correlation not causation. The early appearance is correlated with higher temperature.
The philosopher David Hume reckoned humans only ever see correlation, never causation. Hume's concerns about inductive reasoning (from instances to causes) have never really been refuted.
However, many more examples like this one (to add to sea level rise, CO2 rise, temperature rise, ice caps melting, ozone hole) and we will be able to make the inductive leap like "All swans are white"..... "Another reason why we know the earth is warming".
Except in W.A.
Hm. It's true that we never directly observe causation. Looking at it rigorously, even where we think we observe causation (I strike the glass with a hammer, the glass shatters) we are only really observing correlation.
That is why whenever a scientist describes something as causally linked to anything else, they are only ever speaking in probabilistic terms. However, the phrase "a causal link between A and B" is standard shorthand for "a correlation between A and B with a logically valid theoretical causal-link explanation which has been tested and offers an explanation of the correlation with 95% confidence and with no other known theoretical explanation offering the same or similar degree of confidence". People are free to get post-modernist on the language, but need to bear in mind that the language of ordinary reportage is a shorthand for more rigorous statements - confusing the two is college-café stuff.
Never let the best be the enemy of the good.
The researchers pointed out that they used and rejected various different climate models and only the human-causation one explained the phenomenon. I assume they know what they're talking about and don't choose models on the basis that they're trendy...But you know the danger of seeing with our minds rather than our eyes. Climate change is quite trendy in Oz., its a lot easier to save the planet than the Murray. In fairness, their study may be a lot more rigorous than the outline implies, just because I'm sceptical doesn't mean they're wrong
Perhaps not.......but they might choose one on the basis that it is likely to provide limitless research grants and a long career in the Cassandra business.
Cassandra was telling the truth and wasn't believed until it was too late....
...and of course it will be too late....eventually.
Why is it only the scientists who believe AGW models best explain climate data that are accused of being corrupt or simply looking for funding? Surely the case is more persuasive for those who find in favour of explanations less bothersome to the fossil-fuel industries (where the real money is up for grabs)?
There's a rich tendency among those who think we're about to enter political, economic, and military armageddon to accuse AGW proponents of 'doom-mongering'. I'd have thought it would fit in much more snugly with their seemingly relentless pessimism and suspicion of corporate government...
Reply With Quote