In his article ironically titled “Critical Thinking,” John Schageck merely displays his own scientific illiteracy.

“’Global warming … has resulted when correlation of two things was mistaken for causation.”  He invites “radical environmentalists” (is there any other kind?) to prove “one thing is causing another.” 

So the mountains of compelling data confirming global warming, arising from multiple lines of evidence, reflect only coincidental occurrences, unrelated to climate change? He offers no examples of irrelevant data that have been misconstrued as scientifically trustworthy.

He does resurrect a tired myth often promoted by science deniers. “During the early ‘70’s some scientists predicted the advent of another ice age.”  Then things warmed a bit, and scientists flip-flopped.  Silly scientists — how could we trust anything they say now?  

Then a cold winter in ’93-’94 “prompted a new wave of hysteria about another ice age.”

Here are the facts.  Decades ago a few scientists speculated that certain trends might suggest a cooling climate.  Their case was unconvincing, and the scientific community ignored them.

Anybody who knows anything about climate knows that a single aberrant weather event — a very cold winter, or melting snow and ice at the Winter Olympics — provides little insight into long-term climate changes. Sigh. Weather and climate are still two different things. Scientists did not become hysteric over one cold winter. This is a blatant falsehood.

Over the past 40 years, technology has allowed the collection and correlation of vast data previously unknown to climate scientists. Climate analyses from the 70s are as obsolete as the geocentric universe of the 1400’s.

If Schageck is really interested in discerning association from causation — a key component of any scientific inquiry — he can google “attribution science.”  Or "p-values."

Jon Hauxwell