Correlation-is-causation in climate because of undescribed “multiple lines of evidence”?
The Sydney Morning Herald’s Jessica Irvine writes:
LIES, damned lies and statistics. Many’s the poor statistic that has been tortured into yielding a false confession at the hands of a merciless interrogator.
Climate sceptics have turned such torture into an art form, picking point-to-point time comparisons to show a falling trend in global temperatures, focusing on ”outlier” cool years and redrawing trend lines on graphs.
When they’re not torturing statistics, climate sceptics are taking up arms under the banner of “correlation is not causation”. Which is true enough. Just because phenomenon A exists at the same time as, or slightly before, phenomenon B, does not mean that A caused B or vice versa…
And the point is, what? Warmists don’t use real data at all. They rely exclusively on computer models.
“The sensationalism exhibited in a newspaper is directly proportional to the amount of desperation experienced by the editorial staff due to declining circulation.” – a nugget of journalistic wisdom imparted to me by my mother, a retired proofreader (the last) for a California newspaper
“Fairfax’s Sydney Morning Herald weekday sales plummeted by almost 12 per cent (11.9) year on year.”
The beat goes on . . . .