The trial judge introduced
his conclusions on the causation issue this way: «Applying the principles of causation noted above, I find the following:...».
This is because the law requires proof of causation only on a balance of probabilities, whereas scientific or medical experts often require a higher degree of certainty before drawing
conclusions on causation (p. 330).
Not exact matches
The IPCC's
conclusion on detection and attribution is reached using probabilistic
causation and counterfactual reasoning, whereby an ensemble of simulations are used to evaluate agreement between observations and forcing for simulations conducted with and without anthropogenic forcing.
More specifically in regard to the question of human
causation, opponents of climate change policies that deny human
causation should be expected to specifically respond to the numerous «foot - print» and «attribution» studies that the international community has relied
on to make
conclusions about human
causation.
In
conclusion, there seems to emerge from the Opinion of the AG Saugmandsgaard ØE a narrower interpretation of the State resources criterion, based
on the commitment of public resources and
causation / remoteness.
[49] As discussed above, the cases consistently hold that scientific precision is not necessary to a
conclusion that «but for»
causation is established
on a balance of probabilities.
I used «aberrations» to describe trial decisions above, because, so far, where the the plaintiff succeeded at trial and the
causation issue was decided
on Resurfice «material contribution,» and the case was appealed, the appellate courts have set aside that finding and either affirmed the
conclusion on the basis of «but - for», or dismissed the action if they did not.
Sorry Rich, but your
conclusion based
on the limited facts you've provided is ridiculous, and is only an indication of a basic ignorance of how correlation and
causation work.