A methodological note on the making of causal statements in the debate on anthropogenic global warming

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

At best, the empirical evidence for human impact on climate change, more specifically, the anthropogenic global warming (AGW), is based on correlational research. That is, no experiment has been carried out that confirms or falsifies the causal hypothesis put forward by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that anthropogenic increasing of green house gas concentrations very likely causes increasing of the (mean) global temperature. In this article, we point out the major weaknesses of correlational research in assessing causal hypotheses. We further point out that the AGW hypothesis is in need of potential falsifiers in the Popperian (neopositivistic) sense. Some directions for future research on the formulation of such falsifiers in causal research are discussed. Of course, failure to find falsifying evidence in empirical climate data will render the AWG hypothesis much stronger.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)423-427
JournalTheoretical and Applied Climatology
Volume104
Issue number3-4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2011

Keywords

  • granger causality
  • series analysis
  • climate-change
  • time-series
  • temperature
  • investigate

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'A methodological note on the making of causal statements in the debate on anthropogenic global warming'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this