What is a faulty correlation? They're correlated or they're not. There's may be a faulty casual attribution, but that is another topic.
That might not be the case though (?), see https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/02/an-updated-le... from the other reply
So.. How do you know the evidence is faulty, though? I mean, can you definitively prove it’s faulty? if you can’t, then you have to consider there’s a possibility that it’s causal?
I understand my meaning might've confused HN commenters but I genuinely feel that the intent of my words in the initial comment is intuitive, and don't have time or bandwidth to argue about the semantics. I am sorry for the confusion. I obviously can't definitively prove it is faulty, and was merely trying (likely incorrectly so) to summarize the believed veracity of the hypothesis.
I thought that's what you were doing, intuitively, and I wasn't attacking you. I know how it can feel that way. It's more like a jumping off point for other commenters to hop onto, a group conversation if you will, but the threaded nature does make it look like a direct challenge/reply to you.
You know you can't be sorry for other people's confusion tho, right? That might be some semantics for you! :) haha
Have a good day and thanks for sharing this interesting ref!