Which is why you need to be reminded that correlation isn't causation; just because something sounds good doesn't mean it is. You're just repeating a known fallacy.
It also doesn't preclude causation either. Lacking scientific data otherwise, it's a perfectly valid hypothesis that would certainly warrant investigation. All scientific theory starts with a hypothesis based on observation. Dismissing a hypothesis out of hand because you don't like the implication isn't valid science. We could say that correlation doesn't imply causation with CO2 and the climate change debate as well, even though I don't like the implications of CO2 regulation. However that approach is not consistent with the Scientific Method. Until Science disproves a lack of causation of spanking and discipline, then it's just as valid a hypothesis as any other untested hypothesis.
> it's a perfectly valid hypothesis that would certainly warrant investigation
No one said otherwise, but causation was suggested, and hence disputed.
> All scientific theory starts with
I require no science lessons from you.
> We could say that correlation doesn't imply causation with CO2 and the climate change debate as well
There are known causal effects of C02 on the atmosphere, it's physics, the science has moved far beyond merely trying to prove causal effects and well into trying to understand them.
> Until Science disproves a lack of causation of spanking and discipline, then it's just as valid a hypothesis as any other untested hypothesis.
No one put forth a hypothesis, you're arguing against your own straw-man.
