Is proof that something is happening also proof of what's causing it?

Question

So, when I was prosecuting, I shouldn't have had to prove that the defendant killed the victim, I should have been allowed just to prove twice that she was dead, and then get a conviction?

Does that make any sense to you?

Doesn't make any sense to me.

Nickel, the empirical knowledge is that it's happening, not that we're causing it. That's a leap of faith.

A leap of faith isn't a good enough reason to limit otherwise free activity.

Mark, no, correlation does not equal causation, especially when the correlation is rough and is only applicable to this most recent of several similar periods including three multi-century warm periods, two of which were warmer than it is now, just since the last Ice Age.

Nickel we also know that it has been warmer when CO2 levels were lower, including 1000 years ago when the Vikings farmed Greenland. That took centuries to develop - agricultural records throughout northern Europe show that farms reached ever higher altitudes in the 600s and 700s, not just because they had to but because they COULD. This warmth peaked in the 1100s and then declined in the 1200s into the 1300s.

CO2 levels were lower then.

Science is not law but it's law that you're proposing - law that says that the government can limit my free activity.

In a free society the government shouldn't be able to do that unless that activity causes some alleged harm.

It can't be my burden of proof on that question - otherwise you could just shut down any activity you didn't like by making baseless assertions about it.

So, it's your burden of proof.

You can conclude that since you can't prove it's something else, you suspect that it's us, but that's not proof that it is, and without that proof (A) you have no basis to limit the otherwise free activity and (B) how certain can you honestly be?

This should be no harder to prove than acid rain, but that Nat. Geo. article that showed the chemical compounds from the smokestacks combining with water vapor in clouds? You don't have that on man-made global warming.

That you pretend you do makes me LESS inclined to believe you!

Nickel, they settled and farmed Greenland because it was warm enough to do so. They abandoned Greenland in the 1400s when it had become too cold to sustain an agricultural settlement.

When the settlement started the diet of the inhabitants was 80/20 land/sea based. Just before it was abandoned the diet was 80/20 sea/land based. They know that from analyzing the teeth and bones of the bodies buried there.

There's a longhouse, a cemetary, correspondence with the mainland including the Pope, who said in the 1200s that he wasn't going to send more ships because of all the drift ice - - where'd that drift ice come from?

Answer: same place it's starting to come from now.

This has happened before, with lower CO2 levels, no cars, no trucks, no power plants.

That doesn't mean it's not us this time.

It does mean that just because this time there are cars, trucks and power plants, you can't just infer that they're the cause.

Mike, no, scientific concensus changes all the time until something is proven.

"What killed the dinosaurs" - there've been 3 or 4 different consensus opinions on that over the last 20 years!

You can't place drastic limits or taxes on individual activity based on "a lot of smart people think, but can't prove, that it's so."

OK the denialists here are the ones denying the MWP.

It's not just Greenland and England, it's the whole world - tree lines were 300 feet higher in both the Sierra Nevadas and the Alps.

And please, the wine argument is just silly. Yeah, they're growing wine grapes in England now. After 1000 years of breeding for cold weather and improvements to growing techniques. They're not growing the same grapes in England that they grow in Provence with 11th century growing methods.

In the 11th century, they were.

Because it was warmer.

Trevor, so you say but saying isn't proving.

I'm fast losing patience.

And stupid arguments like "they grow wine grapes in England now" after 1000 years of breeding and improved growing techniques for cold weather, none of which has anything to do with the fact that in the 11th century they grew the same wine grapes in England that they grow in Provence, make me less inclined to give you any benefit of the doubt.

Don't you people think you need proof before you start telling people what they're allowed to drive?

Band, no, it's NOT just a few parts of the earth, the Vikings are one example - it's almost the entire planet. Tree lines were higher in the Sierra Nevadas, the American Southwest suffered the kind of drought they're predicting with another 100-200 years of warming, the plains buffalo and tribes that followed them migrated 500 miles to the north, to what is now tundra / permafrost which had to have then been grassland, the Vikings settled and farmed Greenland and sailed in and out of Newfoundland, the Brits had commercial vineyards, they grew fig and olive trees in Germany, tree lines were also 300 feet higher in the Alps, and mountain passes now iced over were traveled by traders.

If the MWP didn't happen and wasn't warmer than today, then how do you explain the clear record of what grew when and where and what land and water routes were traveled that are now iced over?

Maybe this time it's us, maybe it isn't - that's NOT been proven, and either way, the MWP was warmer.

OK this is not about "beyond a reasonable doubt" - even by a preponderance of the evidence you still don't prevail - there is no evidence of causation.

And the MWP WAS warmer.

I'm not letting you get off easy on that one - if you think it wasn't, then explain how the events that occurred that have since they occurred been attributed to a warmer climate occurred, or that they were somehow forged?

You can't argue that Washington didn't actually cross the Delaware without showing how he in fact got to the other side.

Why were the tree lines 300 feet higher? How'd the Vikings do it? How'd the Brits do it? Etc....

And please, all gristmill and Mann say is that they now grow cold-hardy varieties of grapes in England - - varieties that didn't exist 1000 years ago - - using methods that also didn't exist 1000 years ago.

They do NOT grow the same grapes they grow in Provence using 11th century methods.

In the 11th century, they did.

Because it was WARMER.

Anders it was warmer. Around the world, warm and temperate climate wild and domesticated animal and plant species thrived in regions closer to the poles than is the case today. Around the world, traders and other travelers traveled and in many cases left behind artefacts in areas now ice bound.

If the present warming is unprecedented, why are the melting glaciers uncovering trade routes centuries old?????

BECAUSE IT'S NOT UNPRECEDENTED.

I've read the farming practices study - interesting - but a Catch-22 for the IPCC - - to go with that argument they'd have to admit that the MWP was warmer, which would mean they lied, which would justify a response of: why should we believe anything they say now?

They've really backed themselves into a corner on this one.

The MWP happened, was warmer than today - they either have to admit this or come up with an explanation for the countless examples of events that since they happened have been attributed to warmer temperatures.

Look, people traveled routes that are now ice bound, warm and temperate weather plant and animal species thrived in regions closer to the poles than they can today.

Not in a few corners of the world - pretty much everywhere.

You can't just dismiss that as 'anecdotal' and go with tree rings plugged into computer models that can't replicate the present warming!!!!

Nickel "climate changes have happened in the past but we've never increased CO2 levels so fast" - - right, which means that CO2 levels aren't the driving factor!

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=772

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=434

Answer 1

Some of these people are so eager to believe scientists that agree with them that they are ready to convict global warming. The evidence indicates that temperature increases results in elevated CO2. This is probably because the as the ocean heats up, it gives off CO2 and as it cools it absorbs CO2. This explains the 800 year lag in the CO2 concentrations with fluctuating temperatures. In other words, the CO2 is not causing the temperature to increase, the temperature is cause the CO2 concentration to increase, so even if it can be demonstrated that man is responsible for 50 parts per million (ppm) of the approximate 400 ppm of CO2, there is very little indication or evidence that this will necessarily result in significant temperature increases. We are just continuing our warming trend that we have been on for the last several thousand years. I think global warming should be released and he should sue for false prosecution.

Answer 2

EMPIRICAL KNOWLEDGE:

SCIENCE IS NOT LAW !!!!

You trust everyday your car and and a lot of devices based on empirical knowledge, even for your safety ! This is especially true in mechanical science where we admit "this formula is wrong but close enough from the reality to describe it from this point to this one...." And you still jump into your car without questioning it !!!!


EXAMPLE: we know that every time that the temperatures increased, the CO2 levels increased

But we also know that all CO2 increase also always lead to a temperature increase.

The relation between CO2 and temperature is double and is why sometimes one curve is leading, sometimes it is the other way around.

It is for example the case with the methane (CH4 which will ultimately transform into CO2 and water) that is released by the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
- the increased CO2 let the temperature rise which increase themselves the concentration of greenhouse gases.

But the relation is actually much more complex and this is only a tiny example.

----------------------------------
CONCERNING THE RADIATION FORCING OF CO2:

This is an experience which can be done in a laboratory. We are really pretty sure that some gases have a greenhouse effect.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

It is well tested, well documented and no study ever found that its not accurate.
--------------------------

Answer 3

Something as large as the causes of global climate change will take many years to sort out, even though the evidence is very compelling at the moment. Slight variations and disconnects between cooling/warming of some areas of the earth (Vikings, etc) are not as persuasive as the over all body of evidence. See the article listed here as an excellent summary of how early human activities and subsequent methane production were important even before fossil fuel burning trumped everything else. All things equal, we should be pretty far along the road towards another period of glaciation right now. All our extra greenhouse gasses have masked that for now....but it will be back, and soon! As soon as we finish using up fossil fuels, the long-overdue ice age will have its day.
BTW....science often works with a compilation of overwhelming "weight of evidence", especially for something this complicated and long term. It all falls together neatly, why fight the evidence? Just so you can feel justified in burning fossil fuels? Go ahead.......I think it will make little difference. We are too far down the road already and the momentum in atmospheric loading is huge.

Answer 4

Science has seen many weirder things proved real because of the data.

Global temperatures now are warmer than they were in the MWP. And the rate of increase is far greater than it was back then.

10 different studies, all peer reviewed:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png

The graph stops in 2004. If it extended to 2006 it would be even more striking.

Can you show me one scientific study that says the MWP was warmer, worldwide? Not the anecdotal stuff, just one quantitative study.

There aren't any. Which is just one reason (of many) why:

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know - except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics. Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point,You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

Note the quantitative. Science is based on numbers. Not anecdotal stuff. Not "logical" arguments.

More about the MWP here:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/13/221054/33

Denying global warming now is like saying the Earth is 6000 years old or that NASA faked the moon landings. It's just belief, it's not science.

The vast majority of scientists agree on that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

And supporting a bad theory is no way to advance a scientific career. Neither is making "logical" arguments. A scientist needs hard data.

Scientists also agree global warming is mostly caused by us:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

Answer 5

I'll hazard a guess that you're asking in reference to global warming.

Something can quite easily be proved to be happening and often nothing more than simple observation is required but the causes of the event are a very different matter altogether.

An enquiring mind will observe an event and then seek to find the causes and explanations as to what has been observed.

Specifically in respect of GW, and from your previous posts I have an idea where you're coming from, we know that GW is happening as I beleive you accept.

Without conducting any research we wouldn't know what the causes are, we might be able to hazard a guess but that's all it would be. The reasearch into GW has been ongoing for over 100 years - not on a small scale but on an international level involving some of the top scientific minds.

Their remit isn't to prove or disprove the 'theory' of global warming but to objectively examine all the available data, obtain additional data wherever possible and to refine techniques for obtaining and analysing the data. It's through this process that theories are born, these theories are then exhaustively tested, models produced, experiments perfomed, research conducted, samples analysed. It's this long winded and often very mundane process that ultimately leads to scientists being able to confidently identify the causes.

With GW this process has been relatively straightforward as the key factor underpinning AGW is a relatively simple one that is easily established and proven.

Answer 6

To that question no.

But if you prove that the person had fingerprints on their neck, you may know that they were strangled. If the pattern is a certian way you may know if the person was left or right handed. etc.

The point is that examining the body (or end result), and looking at details can help lead to a cause of death or causality. There is enough general human scientific knowledge, such as the amount of air in the atmosphere, temperature and volume of emmissions multiplied by sources of emmission that can show that if all other factors remain the same, the overall temperature of this volume of air will increase by this ammount over this period of time.

If the professional scientsts believe in certian causes of global warming, they're probably right.

Answer 7

I see, your problem is indeed that science and law do not follow the same rules. In law you have to prove something "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is a subjective term, but basically means you have to prove your case to a near certainty.

In science it is rare to prove something to a certainty. Scientists use probabilities to make their arguments. If something is proven to 95% certainty, that's pretty convincing. I would guess that 5% is a reasonable doubt in a courtroom, but in a scientific lab it's an acceptable amount of doubt. That's just the nature of science.

One thing you should consider is that the law realizes that lawyers are not experts in science, and that's why we have expert testimony. The expert testimony on this issue is that global warming is primarily caused by humans. Now you can always find the crooked shrink to say the defendant was legally insane, and you can also find the crooked scientist to say global warming isn't caused by humans, but over 90% of the experts in this field agree. They know a hell of a lot more than you or me, and it puzzles me why you reject their expert opinions.

The answer to your question is obviously 'no', and nobody is suggesting otherwise. There has been lots of evidence provided here that human CO2 emissions are the primary cause of global warming. You remain unconvinced by this evidence for whatever reason, and clearly nobody here is going to convince you otherwise. Perhaps you need to seek out one of the 90+% of experts and ask them to explain it to you.

Answer 8

Proof that something is happening is not proof of what is causing it. If you want answers to more specific questions please state them.

Regarding some of your earlier replies in this topic:
Yes, there was a warmer period - the medieval warming period. The CO2 levels were lower then today, as was the temperature. So the correlation between CO2 and temperature stands. It has also been shown to stand during the last 650.000 years (ice core samples).

Could you please post some sources for your claims about trading routes?

Answer 9

Correlation != Causation

Answer 10

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming