If you don't believe in global warming, you're standing in the

[Bigfatbillsfan]

LIghten up Francis.

We're just pokin some fun

 

I know! Don't worry bro we're cool! It is kind of true when talking about a bachelor's degree. I did my bachelor's in social work/sociology so I would be able to get a job in the field.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

But I'm not the one that said:

 

 

 

At this point, I think you're just arguing with yourself.

 

I don't think I'm arguing with myself. Nor have a contradicted myself at any point. Let me see if I can explain why your correlative analogies don't work while mine does.

 

When you have a massive flooding of variables you'll find false and misleading correlation all the time. Some of it may be viable and some of it is popter hoc. Now, we can use a test called a CCM, witch stands for Convergent Cross Mapping. This is a tool used to rule out illusory correlation. When applied to something like car ownership and murder rates you'll find that there is nothing to suggest causation. When applied to car ownership and car insurance sales you'll find evidence of a strong causation relationship. Get it? So correlation there would make a strong case that people who buy cars also buy insurance for those cars.

 

When you apply CCM to green house gasses and atmospheric temperature you'll find a strong causation relationship. Therefore it could be inferred that a rise in green house gasses could be causing the Earth's temperature to rise. Is this irrefutable evidence? No. But the case is too strong to ignore.

 

There have been some studies and models in recent years that have been able to make a case that global warming/climate change is a normal part of the Earth's cycle and that the correlation between the Earth's temperature and CO2 is illusory but nothing to rule out man made global warming theory.

 

An analogy that I like to use is:

 

I have high blood pressure. We know that eating mass amounts of salty foods can cause your blood pressure to rise. This doesn't mean that it's the salt I'm eating that is causing my blood pressure to spike, but I cut salty foods out of my diet anyways as a means of precaution.

 

The same should be true of our carbon emissions. We can't afford to take a chance and be wrong. Mother nature is one B word you don't want to !@#$ with.

 

Hopefully this cleared up your misunderstandings.

[DC Tom]

I don't think I'm arguing with myself. Nor have a contradicted myself at any point. Let me see if I can explain why your correlative analogies don't work while mine does.

 

When you have a massive flooding of variables you'll find false and misleading correlation all the time. Some of it may be viable and some of it is popter hoc. Now, we can use a test called a CCM, witch stands for Convergent Cross Mapping. This is a tool used to rule out illusory correlation. When applied to something like car ownership and murder rates you'll find that there is nothing to suggest causation. When applied to car ownership and car insurance sales you'll find evidence of a strong causation relationship. Get it? So correlation there would make a strong case that people who buy cars also buy insurance for those cars.

 

When you apply CCM to green house gasses and atmospheric temperature you'll find a strong causation relationship. Therefore it could be inferred that a rise in green house gasses could be causing the Earth's temperature to rise. Is this irrefutable evidence? No. But the case is too strong to ignore.

 

There have been some studies and models in recent years that have been able to make a case that global warming/climate change is a normal part of the Earth's cycle and that the correlation between the Earth's temperature and CO2 is illusory but nothing to rule out man made global warming theory.

 

An analogy that I like to use is:

 

I have high blood pressure. We know that eating mass amounts of salty foods can cause your blood pressure to rise. This doesn't mean that it's the salt I'm eating that is causing my blood pressure to spike, but I cut salty foods out of my diet anyways as a means of precaution.

 

The same should be true of our carbon emissions. We can't afford to take a chance and be wrong. Mother nature is one B word you don't want to !@#$ with.

 

Hopefully this cleared up your misunderstandings.

 

Clear up your own first. Your analogies don't even make sense (people who buy cars buy car insurance? That's not a correlation you have to tease out of data with statistical methods, that's direct causation, you idiot), and your claim that CCM somehow demonstrates causation in global warming is idiotic because no one's yet applied CCM to climate change issues (CCM itself was only published a year ago). That would be a great area of research...for a proper scientist. Too bad you're only a sociologist.

 

And yes, you are contradicting yourself...you're the one that said correlation doesn't equal causation, then tried to equate correlation and causation. And now you're trying to BS your way out of the hole you dug by referencing research that doesn't exist.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

Clear up your own first. Your analogies don't even make sense (people who buy cars buy car insurance? That's not a correlation you have to tease out of data with statistical methods, that's direct causation, you idiot), and your claim that CCM somehow demonstrates causation in global warming is idiotic because no one's yet applied CCM to climate change issues (CCM itself was only published a year ago). That would be a great area of research...for a proper scientist. Too bad you're only a sociologist.

 

And yes, you are contradicting yourself...you're the one that said correlation doesn't equal causation, then tried to equate correlation and causation. And now you're trying to BS your way out of the hole you dug by referencing research that doesn't exist.

 

You seem to be confused as to the difference between referencing data and giving an example. If I was referencing data my claim would have been followed by a link to an actual study. The example of car ownership to insurance is also an example. I used one with direct causation to try to make it easy for you to understand.

 

Also, CCM has been around longer than a year though it has only been published and accepted as a reasonable way to manage data to find causation in the past year or so.

 

Really dude, let it go. You don't know what you're talking about and your opinion, regardless of how forcefully you state it, does not constitute fact.

[Oxrock]

All things skeptical... http://wattsupwiththat.com/

 

[DC Tom]

You seem to be confused as to the difference between referencing data and giving an example. If I was referencing data my claim would have been followed by a link to an actual study. The example of car ownership to insurance is also an example. I used one with direct causation to try to make it easy for you to understand.

 

Also, CCM has been around longer than a year though it has only been published and accepted as a reasonable way to manage data to find causation in the past year or so.

 

Really dude, let it go. You don't know what you're talking about and your opinion, regardless of how forcefully you state it, does not constitute fact.

 

Now wait just a damn minute...you're the (*^*&%^$^#that said correlation doesn't equal causation, but then said it was compelling evidence of causation, THEN whined when given an example of how ridiculous that was, then said correlation equaled causation if demonstrated by a recently developed statistical method, and are now bitching about others not understanding the difference between example and data?

 

You can't even have a consistent discussion. Again, you seem to be arguing with yourself.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

Now wait just a damn minute...you're the (*^*&%^$^#that said correlation doesn't equal causation, but then said it was compelling evidence of causation, THEN whined when given an example of how ridiculous that was, then said correlation equaled causation if demonstrated by a recently developed statistical method, and are now bitching about others not understanding the difference between example and data?

 

Forget it you're hopeless. I forgot that when you don't know what you're talking about you go off on these weird diatribes acting like you don't understand because the person isn't able to explain it to you correctly. It's like playing chess with a parrot. No matter how the game goes in the end you knock over the pieces, **** all over the board, and strut around like you're victorious.

 

Think what you will but being arrogant doesn't make you intelligent.

 

 

 

Whatever dude, I forgot that when you don't know what you're talking about trying to argue out a point

[3rdnlng]

Forget it you're hopeless. I forgot that when you don't know what you're talking about you go off on these weird diatribes acting like you don't understand because the person isn't able to explain it to you correctly. It's like playing chess with a parrot. No matter how the game goes in the end you knock over the pieces, **** all over the board, and strut around like you're victorious.

 

Think what you will but being arrogant doesn't make you intelligent.

 

 

 

Whatever dude, I forgot that when you don't know what you're talking about trying to argue out a point

 

While studying for your Masters degree were ever any English classes required?

[meazza]

While studying for your Masters degree were ever any English classes required?

 

The language was creole.

[DC Tom]

Forget it you're hopeless. I forgot that when you don't know what you're talking about you go off on these weird diatribes acting like you don't understand because the person isn't able to explain it to you correctly. It's like playing chess with a parrot. No matter how the game goes in the end you knock over the pieces, **** all over the board, and strut around like you're victorious.

 

Think what you will but being arrogant doesn't make you intelligent.

 

 

 

Whatever dude, I forgot that when you don't know what you're talking about trying to argue out a point

 

You haven't explained anything, except how a new statistical method MIGHT reduce correlation to causation in climate science IF anyone actually applied it. Your entire argument here with respect to global warming is now nothing more than "a theory exists that can reduce correlation to causation, therefore correlation is causation, even though correlation does not equal causation."

 

Do you really not comprehend how unbelievably dense and completely invalid that is as an argument? Until and unless someone actually applies Sugihara's methods to climate change, you're basically completely full of ****. Again. Still. Of course you can't know anything about that...you don't know **** about science, you majored in sociology.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

You haven't explained anything, except how a new statistical method MIGHT reduce correlation to causation in climate science IF anyone actually applied it. Your entire argument here with respect to global warming is now nothing more than "a theory exists that can reduce correlation to causation, therefore correlation is causation, even though correlation does not equal causation."

 

Do you really not comprehend how unbelievably dense and completely invalid that is as an argument? Until and unless someone actually applies Sugihara's methods to climate change, you're basically completely full of ****. Again. Still. Of course you can't know anything about that...you don't know **** about science, you majored in sociology.

 

No, that's not what I've said at all. This does nothing but display your fundamental lack of understanding statistical data points and how a test like CCM is applied. But please continue to chase your own tail. It's fun for me to watch.

 

What did you major in anyways? Arrogant stupidity? If so, you got your money's worth.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Bigfatbillsfan

[DC Tom]

No, that's not what I've said at all. This does nothing but display your fundamental lack of understanding statistical data points and how a test like CCM is applied. But please continue to chase your own tail. It's fun for me to watch.

 

What did you major in anyways? Arrogant stupidity? If so, you got your money's worth.

 

Therein lies the fundamental flaw in your argument: CCM HASN'T BEEN APPLIED TO GLOBAL WARMING. You idiot. You're trying to argue from a point of view that doesn't even exist.

 

 

Anyone want to tell dumbass here what my degree's in? Since he's the only one who seems to not know...

[meazza]

Therein lies the fundamental flaw in your argument: CCM HASN'T BEEN APPLIED TO GLOBAL WARMING. You idiot. You're trying to argue from a point of view that doesn't even exist.

 

 

Anyone want to tell dumbass here what my degree's in? Since he's the only one who seems to not know...

 

Liberal arts?

[DC Tom]

Liberal arts?

 

!@#$ you.

[meazza]

!@#$ you.

 

[....lybob]

Therein lies the fundamental flaw in your argument: CCM HASN'T BEEN APPLIED TO GLOBAL WARMING. You idiot. You're trying to argue from a point of view that doesn't even exist.

 

 

Anyone want to tell dumbass here what my degree's in? Since he's the only one who seems to not know...

I heard Tom had something about physics published so his degree must be in self publishing

[3rdnlng]

Liberal arts?

 

They have liberal arts at BNIT?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. (Bill Nye Institute of Technology)

 

 

 

.

[DC Tom]

Yeah, I knew I could count on you guys to completely !@#$ me over. What the !@#$ was I thinking?

 

BF-squared: I have a degree in physics. Specialized in statistical physics. And I have Sugihara's paper on my desktop in front of me. So shut the !@#$ up.

[3rdnlng]

Yeah, I knew I could count on you guys to completely !@#$ me over. What the !@#$ was I thinking?

 

BF-squared: I have a degree in physics. Specialized in statistical physics. And I have Sugihara's paper on my desktop in front of me. So shut the !@#$ up.

 

Guess we felt that you didn't need any help with BFBF, but if that changes let us know.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

Yeah, I knew I could count on you guys to completely !@#$ me over. What the !@#$ was I thinking?

 

BF-squared: I have a degree in physics. Specialized in statistical physics. And I have Sugihara's paper on my desktop in front of me. So shut the !@#$ up.

 

:wallbash:

Holy. ****. You. dumb. mother. !@#$er. The CCM is an example I am using, that I am more familiar with, because it is new and quickly becoming widely used and accepted as a viable form of data mapping. The. Point. I. Am. Trying. To. Get. Across. To you're idiotic as is:

 

You don't need to data map car ownership and insurance sales to know they effect each other. It's a given. But if you did, you would find that the correlation in that point would indicate causation. You don't need CCM to find out that clouds cause rain. But if you did you would find a strong causation to correlation relationship. And you don't need to data map to find that CO2 has a relationship with green house effect. But if you did... And you don't need to use the CCM to data map. There are plenty of other methods available.

 

Now, can you find a data map (it doesn't even have to be a CCM) that shows a strong causation to correlation between car ownership and gun violence be my guest. But I doubt you will. Therefore your argument that car ownership's correlation with gun violence is the same type of correlation as CO2 with global climate change is a load of ****.

 

You keep bringing this back to the CCM because you don't have a real argument. So please, enjoy Siguhara's paper. Then come back and try to argue the point instead of running off down a rabbit hole when you don't have a point to be made.

 

So now, are you a physicist? Or are you so incredibly good at it that you don't even work in the field? And sorry I forgot what your degree was in. I keep forgetting that your sense of self importance dictates that we should know everything you've ever told us.