Pat Sajak - People concerned about climate change are racists
- Thread starter Displaced Bama Fan
- Start date
ahhh the evolution of a tidefans post. It starts out about Pat Sajak's comments and eventually evolves into comments that have absolutely nothing to do with the original post.
Over population is absolutely related to climate change, and if one thinks about it, over population has racial overtones.
The scales aren't the same but the correlation is quite evident. I wish I had the raw numbers; it would correlate very high
speak for yourself. im trying to figure out how to insert a lollipop in my ear hole
Re: Sajak's initial comment:
If I spent 30 years in the same room with Vanna White, i wouldn't have much blood flowing to my brain, either.
If I spent 30 years in the same room with Vanna White, i wouldn't have much blood flowing to my brain, either.
Thus why I would like to have raw data.
Correlation means causation = logical fallacy
Correlation not equal to causation = logical fallacy
We agree.
Correlation does not imply causation = truth.
Which is why graphs are essentially meaningless without huge amounts of data, how/when it was gathered and tons of other variables...
But they sure make it easy to jump to conclusions!
Well again, scientists aren't monolithic. I'm sure some do. But I'm sure many more are just looking for answers.
Correlations can be important.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
CA, we used to call the examples in your graphs spurious correlations
However, sometimes people commit the opposite fallacy – dismissing correlation entirely, as if it does not suggest causation at all. This would dismiss a large swath of important scientific evidence.[SUP][20][/SUP] Since it may be difficult or ethically impossible to run controlled double-blind studies, correlational evidence from several different angles may be the strongest causal evidence available.[SUP][21][/SUP] The combination of limited available methodologies with the dismissing correlation fallacy has on occasion been used to counter a scientific finding. For example, the tobacco industry has historically relied on a dismissal of correlational evidence to reject a link between tobacco and lung cancer.[SUP][22][/SUP]
In conclusion, correlation is a valuable type of scientific evidence in fields such as medicine, psychology, and sociology. But first correlations must be confirmed as real, and then every possible causative relationship must be systematically explored. In the end correlation can be used as powerful evidence for a cause-and-effect relationship between a treatment and benefit, a risk factor and a disease, or a social or economic factor and various outcomes. But it is also one of the most abused types of evidence, because it is easy and even tempting to come to premature conclusions based upon the preliminary appearance of a correlation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
CA, we used to call the examples in your graphs spurious correlations
However, sometimes people commit the opposite fallacy – dismissing correlation entirely, as if it does not suggest causation at all. This would dismiss a large swath of important scientific evidence.[SUP][20][/SUP] Since it may be difficult or ethically impossible to run controlled double-blind studies, correlational evidence from several different angles may be the strongest causal evidence available.[SUP][21][/SUP] The combination of limited available methodologies with the dismissing correlation fallacy has on occasion been used to counter a scientific finding. For example, the tobacco industry has historically relied on a dismissal of correlational evidence to reject a link between tobacco and lung cancer.[SUP][22][/SUP]
In conclusion, correlation is a valuable type of scientific evidence in fields such as medicine, psychology, and sociology. But first correlations must be confirmed as real, and then every possible causative relationship must be systematically explored. In the end correlation can be used as powerful evidence for a cause-and-effect relationship between a treatment and benefit, a risk factor and a disease, or a social or economic factor and various outcomes. But it is also one of the most abused types of evidence, because it is easy and even tempting to come to premature conclusions based upon the preliminary appearance of a correlation.
I agree. However, there are many scientists (Bill Nye being one that comes to mind) who debate and speak as though they are. So we've got on one hand science (or people in science) saying that theories aren't seen as truths or absolute truths. But then on the other hand have no issue arguing down people as though they are.
Last edited:
The bottom line is, we are dumping more fossil fuel by-product into the atmosphere more than ever before and destroying our oceans with millions of pounds fertilizers and pesticides that get washed out through the various rivers. The Gulf of Mexico has a dead zone because it lacks oxygen thanks to all the stuff washed out via the Mississippi. Fukishima is still irradiating the Pacific ocean because the Japanese have not made the sacrifices to cap it. China and India each have over a billion people and are quickly becoming industrialized to the point that traffic is a major issue with vehicles, not bicycles. Smog, lack of pollution control devices on their factories such as scrubbers, and other things are causing massive problems in China.
Brazil is growing leaps and bounds and as a result, cutting down the rainforest that provides a lot to our ecosystem as a world. Africa is the same way.
So, there are man made events that are causing the world to heat up. I'm not going to hide under a shell and deny that. There are natural events that also cause the world to heat up or cool down. Recognizing both is key. Now we just need to have India, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia go to war, and a crippling jungle disease to spread through out Brazil (but save the big booty hot chicks who dance at Carnival).
We also need to control the population in this country as well and "help" Mexico control theirs.
We need MERS to take hold in the middle east and take out 95% of them as well. Sick, but it's true.
I guarantee you if we quit sending aid to these 3rd world countries, you'll see a population decrease.
Brazil is growing leaps and bounds and as a result, cutting down the rainforest that provides a lot to our ecosystem as a world. Africa is the same way.
So, there are man made events that are causing the world to heat up. I'm not going to hide under a shell and deny that. There are natural events that also cause the world to heat up or cool down. Recognizing both is key. Now we just need to have India, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia go to war, and a crippling jungle disease to spread through out Brazil (but save the big booty hot chicks who dance at Carnival).
We also need to control the population in this country as well and "help" Mexico control theirs.
We need MERS to take hold in the middle east and take out 95% of them as well. Sick, but it's true.
I guarantee you if we quit sending aid to these 3rd world countries, you'll see a population decrease.
New Posts
-
-
-
-
Joke thread - including cartoons, memes, and misc - Part IX
- Latest: crimsonaudio
-
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
Why do young people still pick up smoking?- Started by AlistarWills
- Replies: 9
-
No. 18 Alabama Falls 9-7 at No. 15 Vanderbilt in Sunday Rubber Game
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 3
-
Looking for Legislative Support- Started by smith5753
- Replies: 1