Correlation is usually not causation. But why not?

Or do an experiment - grab a mug and lift it. I claim that your arm motion while your hand had grabbed the mug caused it to ascend. We can again examine the basic physical events, cutting them as fine as you'd like, and we'll see that it really was you with your arm, who caused the mug to ascend.

This is a cause-and-effect link -- when you can show how event A lead to event B via a chain of events, each of which directly causes the next. At the least you need to show that there is a sensible progression from the cause to the effect, in order to claim a causation.

Correlation on the other hand is a description of past observations. You can observe that each time it snows people increase their energy expenditure in order to heat their homes. Does the increase in heating cause the snow? That doesn't seem likely, knowing how heating works. It could be that increased energy demands leads to more coal being burned, leading to larger clouds being formed and lowering the outside temperature. However, even though increased coal burning does lead to such effects, they're pretty small from just increased heating, so we can discount this hypothesis. On the other hand, you can show that cold weather causes snow. Water that falls in cold air crystallises and becomes snow. So there is a definite causative relationship between cold weather and snow. Could there also be a causative relationship between cold weather and heating? Well, assuming that people wish to live at a constant surrounding air temperature of about 20-30 degrees, that seems very likely. There are of course individuals who don't fit that profile, but they are very few (I can't actually provide a study which supports that claim, but just assume it for the purposes of this demonstration). In the end, we can say that while snow and heating are correlated, heating does not cause snow. They simply have a common cause - cold weather.

And finally, if you keep your home at a constant temperature, the setting on your heater does not correlate with the temperature inside your home, because the temperature is constant, while you have to change the setting up and down to counteract the more or less cold weather outside. It does correlate perfectly with the outside temperature, but I'll leave proving that putting your heater on high doesn't make the temperature outside drop by 10 degrees as an exercise.

For indirect causation, I just said winter weather to try to be brief. But, sure, the cause is the ice and snow on the roads, not just the weather in some vague sense. I was trying to keep the explanation simple, avoid discussing indirect causation, and concentrate on the OP issue of causation versus correlation.

How would you want it addressed? A large part of the article is exactly about how the - to some - "intuitive" idea of 3 evenly split categories is incorrect. E.g. later in the article he writes:

"It turns out, we weren’t supposed to be reasoning ‘there are 3 categories of possible relationships, so we start with 33%’, but rather: ‘there is only one explanation “A causes B”, only one explanation “B causes A”, but there are many explanations of the form “C1 causes A and B”, “C2 causes A and B”, “C3 causes A and B”…’, and the more nodes in a field’s true causal networks (psychology or biology vs physics, say), the bigger this last category will be."

Presumably this is why two people separately assumed you did not read the whole article.

It's actually an argument for more cojones in science-- being willing to do bold stuff and explore "crazy" hypotheses. If all the easy stuff is done already, then picking methodically and timidly among the dregs is unlikely to ever yield anything.