Why do the AGW alarmist think the positive correlation means cause and effect?

Question

Why do the AGW alarmist think the positive correlation means cause and effect?

Answer 1

We don't. There is a very solid physical basis for believing that carbon dioxide levels are linked to temperatures. Carbon dioxide's properties as a greenhouse gas can be directly observed under controlled conditions in laboratory experiments. In fact, carbon dioxide was known to be a greenhouse gas as early as the mid-nineteenth century; long before accurate and reliable reconstructions of past temperatures and CO2 levels were available.

The fact that CO2 levels so closely correlate with temps is simply one of a great many lines of evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming theory.

Ironically, it is the GW denialists who are most guilty of committing the correlation fallacy, when they attempt to link solar cycles to the modern warming period without a physical justification for doing so.

Answer 2

Because they don't have anything else to link it to.  There could be something that is causing an increase in both carbon emissions and temperature.  The two could have nothing in common and be mere coincidence.  But they feel that it's enough proof and people need to change their ways before it's too late.

Answer 3

I don't understand why I still enter global warming debates and I am not even sure why it is debated anymore.  However, here goes....

All of the causes that supposed alarmist have linked to global warming (human induced or not) are actual links to changes in the environment.  In a controlled laboratory experiment the effects of carbon dioxide, methane, sulfur dioxide, etc. can be observed.  Their effects on ozone and the greenhouse effect can be reproduced and observed countless times by countless individuals.  These are not just jokers playing mad scientist.  These are true professionals who use the scientific method to conduct these experiments.  They use advanced statistics to understand the meaning of their results.  Then they publish their results.  When they publish they have to explain in absolute detail every step of their experiment.  Even down to such trivial things as when the experiment was conducted and the number of people present.  Any researcher who reads the results has to be able to reproduce the experiment and achieve the same results if they so desire.  If other people do reattempt the same experiment and it does not work than the original work is debunked as false.  NO SCIENTIST WILL EVER ASSUME THAT CORRELATION MEANS CAUSATION WITHOUT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE THAT THE RELATIONSHIP IS TRUE.

Answer 4

Correlation alone doesn't necessarily imply a causal link, but a correlation in the presence of a valid explanatory physical mechanism is strong evidence in favor of a causal link.  It's a pretty basic part of the philosophy of science.  

It's funny, you all think it can't be true but you can't point out what is wrong with the physics.  In general terms, do you think the geochemistry is wrong, the radiative transfer is wrong, or that radiative forcing doesn't affect climate?

Answer 5

I don't understand your question.  The climate models used by the IPCC are complex mathematical models built from observed data and incorporating a theory about the way carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere reduce the heat being radiated from the earth back to space.  There is a section in their report about how these models are validated.  They certainly don't depend upon correlations.  

Their report on the 'Physical Science Basis' is at http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.h... and the models are discussed in chapter 8.

The work can be constructively criticized at several points but I don't think unexplained correlation is one of them

Answer 6

It's simply mans eternal quest to understand his environment.Trying to formulate a relationship of facts and data to natural phenomena has a long history.If it was as easy as purposed there would be no debate and everyone knows it.Sure they can monitor cycles and use statistics to formulate a opinion. Only having to revise it every time there's a unseen variable or corrupt data.Some areas they do a great job in developing theory in others they fail miserably.

Answer 7

To them a positive correlation is only valid when it implicates the human race. The obvious correlation with solar variability and rapid climatic change over the last few millennium is of no consequence no the alarmists.

Answer 8

They remind me of my dog.  Every morning the mailman walks up to the porch.  My dog hears this 'intruder' and barks his head off.  Of course the mailman turns and walks away.  This has happened hundreds and hundreds of times.  Of course, my dog has concluded that his barking is what causes the mailman to walk away.  Global warming alarmists are on an even level with my dog.