What you have is a weak, not a strong, correlation.
Yes and?
Weak correlations are perfectly acceptable in complex and chaotic systems, strong/weak correlations is an important difference because strong correlations tends to prove while weak correlations tend to give an hint.
But again,
the most simple explanation (provided it's a logical one) must be taken as the truth until we either prove it wrong or find an even more simple explanation. That's basically how science progresses. You make assumptions, prove they're logical, show how they explain or solve a problem, and it's considered truth until we have a counter example or a better one.
And I simply correct the assertion made that it was a strong correlation, duh...Odd how many of these basic errors are made over and over by believers in climate change, isn't it? Almost as if they were taught things that were wrong. Oh, I forgot, they are being taught things that are wrong. Like this case at hand of "strong correlation."
Unrelated, you don't have a correct explanation or a correct use of Occam's Razor, but regardless, numerous anti-razors come to mind. Bolded is my favorite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor#Controversial_aspects_of_the_razorAnti-razors[edit]
Occam's razor has met some opposition from people who have considered it too extreme or rash. Walter Chatton (c. 1290–1343) was a contemporary of William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347) who took exception to Occam's razor and Ockham's use of it. In response he devised his own anti-razor: "If three things are not enough to verify an affirmative proposition about things, a fourth must be added, and so on." Although there have been a number of philosophers who have formulated similar anti-razors since Chatton's time, no one anti-razor has perpetuated in as much notability as Chatton's anti-razor, although this could be the case of the Late Renaissance Italian motto of unknown attribution Se non è vero, è ben trovato ("Even if it is not true, it is well conceived") when referred to a particularly artful explanation.
Anti-razors have also been created by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716), Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), and Karl Menger (1902–1985). Leibniz's version took the form of a principle of plenitude, as Arthur Lovejoy has called it: the idea being that God created the most varied and populous of possible worlds. Kant felt a need to moderate the effects of Occam's razor and thus created his own counter-razor: "The variety of beings should not rashly be diminished."[73]
Karl Menger found mathematicians to be too parsimonious with regard to variables, so he formulated his Law Against Miserliness, which took one of two forms: "Entities must not be reduced to the point of inadequacy" and "It is vain to do with fewer what requires more." A less serious but (some[who?] might say) even more extremist anti-razor is 'Pataphysics, the "science of imaginary solutions" developed by Alfred Jarry (1873–1907). Perhaps the ultimate in anti-reductionism, "'Pataphysics seeks no less than to view each event in the universe as completely unique, subject to no laws but its own."
Variations on this theme were subsequently explored by the Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges in his story/mock-essay "Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius". There is also Crabtree's Bludgeon, which cynically states that "[n]o set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated."
