When I was in college, many of my professors were quick to warn that a correlation is not the same thing as causation. In statistical terminology, a correlation indicates the strength and direction of a linear relationship between two random variables. This is in contrast with the use of the term in colloquial “everyday” speech, where in it often implies a causal relationship. In short, we often use the term to imply that one thing leads to another.

This is especially true in the media. Everyday we’re bombarded with “alleged” new scientific breakthroughs that either imply or say right out that “A” causes “B.” Over time, many of these claims have been disproved and forgotten. For example, there was a time when eating Oat Bran was thought of as being extremely healthy for you. Later it was found out to be not quite so true. There have been a host of such claims throughout my lifetime.

We could go back even further in history and make such wrongheaded claims. For example, it would be easy to say that since they happened around the same time period, there was a correlation between the plague that ravaged Europe and the reformation of the church. Similarly, plagues ravaged Japan several hundred years previously around the same time as Buddhism was being introduced from China. Hence it would be easy for someone to say that there is a correlation between religion and the plague.

More correctly it could be implied that there is a correlation between trade and the plague. Europe’s plagues were in fact introduced by fleas which were brought in through rats that happened to be aboard trading ships coming from Asia. Japan’s plagues were similarly introduced from China. Does this necessarily mean that trade or religion is bad?

Given the power of today’s media, could you imagine just how different the world might be if they had the influence they do today on the world back then? On the negative side, we might still be experiencing plagues to this day. Perhaps our technology might not have advanced to where it is today and we might also still be largely regulated to the Eastern Hemisphere. We might even have a world where religion is outlawed. Depending on your upbringing and world view, that last one might be either a good or bad thing.

It all very much reminds me of the old Woody Allen comedy “Sleeper.” For those of you who never saw the movie, you didn’t miss that much. However, there is a point in one of the opening scenes where a group of scientists are contemplating thawing Mr. Allen out of his cryogenic state. In the scene they wonder aloud in amazement how people from his time (the 1960-70’s) actually thought that eating chocolate and smoking cigarettes were unhealthy for you. You see according to the movie, in the future these things will actually be seen as being good for you!

With that being said, I think it important for people to remember that science doesn’t always get it right the first time. That’s why I think it important not to run lemming like into the premise of “Global Warming!” Is there a correlation between CO2 and rising temperatures? Yes! Is there a correlation between the beginning of the industrial age and the current rise in CO2? Yes! Have CO2 levels rose and fallen in previous times? That too is a definite yes! What?!

What the media and the scientists aren’t saying so loudly, “if at all,” is that last one. So what caused the previous rise in CO2 levels? The truth is, at this point in time, we just don’t know for sure. Presently, there is just so much about our Earth and the weather that we really don’t know enough yet to make such bold claims. This is one way in which the power of the media can be destructive. In much the same way the mistake of equating correlation to causation, by equating opinion to fact, news reporting morphs itself from simply relating the day’s events into propaganda.

We know that there was a definite measured rise in “recorded” temperatures in the 1990’s. But how much of that is due to flawed measurement taking. Can some of that rise in temperatures be attributed to the "heat island effect?" For those of you who may be unaware, (that means anyone who listens to and believes wholeheartedly anything put out by the mainstream media). The heat island effect is due to the urbanization of areas that were previously agricultural. In short ask yourself, does paving everything over cause the temperatures to rise? If so, then let us reconsider the 1930’s? Temperatures back then were the hottest on record until the 90’s. If the heat island effect skewed the data of the 90’s, maybe the 1930’s were indeed warmer as some have proposed.

Now some have proposed covering large areas of Greenland with a reflective covering to prevent the glaciers there from melting. Do not clouds do the same thing? What causes clouds to form in the first place? We really do not know for sure. Some have proposed that it is a result of cosmic dust falling into the Earth's atmosphere. As the dust falls, it collects moisture and thus is important factor in cloud formation. More cosmic dust, more clouds, more clouds, more sunlight reflected back into space, more sunlight reflected back into space, means cooler temperatures.

Another point to ponder is that when the astronauts first landed on the moon, some scientists speculated that if cosmic dust falls at a constant rate, and if the moon was in fact hundreds of thousands if not millions of years old, then when the lunar landing vehicle touched down it would subsequently sink into the dust. History proves that just didn’t happen so why not? Some postulated that this was the result of solar flares and solar winds. In periods of high solar activity, i.e. sunspots and solar flares, solar winds sweep away amounts of cosmic dust and prevents it from falling into the atmosphere. Less dust, less cloud cover, less cloud cover, higher temperatures.

As the theory goes, solar activity was high during the 1990's and cloud cover was thus reduced. Currently there is very little solar activity i.e. sunspots and solar flares taking place. The thought is that now we are seeing increased cloud cover which results in a lowering of temperatures which is indeed what many in the scientific community are noting. Is there a correlation there? It sure looks that way! Does that mean our problem is solved? Maybe, maybe not!

The truth of the matter is we just don’t know enough right now! We need more data before we rush lemming like headlong into the unknown. Now is not the time to remake the world into Al Gore’s image. We have other more serious problems to deal with right now.