WARNING!! Correlation Does Not Prove Causation!!

Just thought I'd throw that out, since there could be some misconceptions about the data I am presenting and the correlations that appear.

This warning is brought to you courtesy of the on-going Global Warming controversy. Like most controversies involving science, that controversy exists because people forget that correlation does not prove cause. It has now occasioned a lawsuit by an Eskimo village in Alaska, which is suing Exxon for causing the sea level to rise and wash away part of the village.

The danger here is similar to that posed by the Dow Corning silicone implant lawsuit. Lawyers realize that in civil suits, all they need to do is convince the jury that the defendant needs to be punished. The typical jurist has no idea that correlation and causation are two completely different things. American jurisprudence thrives on circumstantial evidence, which is another way of saying that it is based in superstition.

Correlation is created by relationships in statistical data giving a probability that something could or could not occur, and is useless without a statement setting out the level at which the correlation would be considered significant. That statement is based on a purely subjective decision.

Causation is shown when witnesses can prove that a particular action resulted in a particular effect. It is a statement of fact, and has no subjective component.

Unfortunately, the American legal system is intoxicated with the concept of correlation implying causation. From a purely scientific standpoint, circumstantial evidence NEVER proves innocence or guilt beyond the level of confidence predetermined by the trier. Defense in civil suits is primarily a matter of proving one's innocence, with the same kind of intelligence and reasoning as pervaded the Salem Witchcraft Trials.

The Dow case resulted in a judgment against Dow Corning that was so large the company filed for bankruptcy. The lawyers got their fees, the class action members got their piddly awards, and lots of people lost their jobs, because the legal system allows pseudoscience in the courtroom. The fact that it was later shown that the Dow product was not the cause of the problems was simply too bad for common sense and justice.

My data does not imply causation of any kind.