Good on ya! It's actually from the musical Hair, but we of a certain generation know the version you cited. None of my millennial grad students knew the answer.
Yes, but. We still use correlation, regression, and other models to determine if data trends are related. It may not prove/disprove cause effect. But by weeding out other factors we can determine the likelihood of a cause-effect relationship, and how strong it is.
The question, "is there climate warming and is it human-caused" is actually two questions. For the purpose of a more "scientific/logical" discussion, they should be considered separately. The first question is easier to answer than the second because it can be measured (although the measures are very complex, and subject to a range of subtleties). So the first can be reasonably well supported by data. The second is usually answered by means of correlations (didn't you warn that correlation is not proof of causation?), or by models in which model output correlates with measured data (more correlations). My point is not about climate, but about proper scientific reasoning and evidence. As young people say nowadays, "just sayin'".
Good on ya! It's actually from the musical Hair, but we of a certain generation know the version you cited. None of my millennial grad students knew the answer.
Yes, but. We still use correlation, regression, and other models to determine if data trends are related. It may not prove/disprove cause effect. But by weeding out other factors we can determine the likelihood of a cause-effect relationship, and how strong it is.
My bullshit meter has been flashing red for a long time.
Age of Aquarius by the Fifth Dimension. (Yeah, I'm that old.)
The question, "is there climate warming and is it human-caused" is actually two questions. For the purpose of a more "scientific/logical" discussion, they should be considered separately. The first question is easier to answer than the second because it can be measured (although the measures are very complex, and subject to a range of subtleties). So the first can be reasonably well supported by data. The second is usually answered by means of correlations (didn't you warn that correlation is not proof of causation?), or by models in which model output correlates with measured data (more correlations). My point is not about climate, but about proper scientific reasoning and evidence. As young people say nowadays, "just sayin'".