Sentences with phrase «are human causes»

why deforestation occurs (students cut and stick to show which are natural disasters and which are human causes of deforestation).

Why deforestation occurs (students cut and stick to show which are natural disasters and which are human causes of deforestation).

To apply this principle to the issue at hand, we would have to say that given the effect — the development of a human body — the cause bringing this about must be a human cause.

I do have concerns with aluminum food / water containers, even though the link to Alzheimers hasn't been proven (look how long it has taken to «prove» global warming is human caused).

I would say, those who don't care about what's causing it, who see the argument of «are humans causing it» as a red herring, are focused on solutions, and how to fix it.

We also find it amusing that Broad takes anything Robert Carter has to say seriously, given that he doesn't even believe that current rises in CO2 are human caused (judging from his Senate performance).

The fact is that this is a human caused problem and it's sad just like the overabundance of cats and dogs in this country which cause 10 million of them to be killed each year in shelters while people still breed more (ignorance).

If it is the human causing the problem, why not target the owners?

Those cats are a human caused problem.

We've determined without doubt that this GW really is human caused, and the only people who doubt it are treated the same way the people are today who claim the world isn't round, we never landed on the moon, etc..

It is another red - herring being used by interest groups to further another absolutely useless debate which we all know as «is climate change real» and «are humans causing this?».

If he says the world has warmed 0.8 degrees and most of that is human caused, then it must be at least that.

JimD, I think the biggest reason you think my numbers are going in circles is because you are assuming some particular temperature in the past 50 or 100 years is normal and that any change from that temperature is human caused.

it's the human caused stuff that doesn't hold up.

The NCA and CSSR simply pick out the worst rising variables, global or regional, that might be related to global warming (which they also assume is human caused).

Plus the whole idea of limiting post-industrial warming to 2.0 or 1.5 degrees more or less assumes that all of the warming is human caused.

But the paper makes no quantification of how much of the total observed warming is manmade, and therefore can't possibly be taken as an endorsement that most warming is human caused.

That low cost energy would allow them to bring themselves out of subsistence living and be more able to adapt to potential climate shifts, whether they be human caused or natural.

# 2 Is a big problem for climate skeptics because they don't want to accept the warming of the 20th century was human caused.

The result of her survey was that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is human caused.

There's compelling «evidence» for the argument that it's human caused.

He adapted it from his Green Options article How Much Global Warming Are Humans Causing.

hence it must be human caused.

*********************** The context of that piece was generally «are humans the cause of warming».

What is the default position in climate science, that all events are human caused or all events are naturally caused?

% of the warming is human caused (Judith picks 90 % as the upper bound): so, that means a 1 - 10 % chance that the anthropogenic fraction is not in that range: does that mean 1 - 10 % chance that the warming is either 0 - 50 % or 91 - 100 % (or more — after all, if natural variability would have been cooling, then anthropogenic causes could be more than 100 %)?

The latest in this saga is a comment that Richard Tol submitted to ERL, as a response to John Cook's study in which they found 97 % agreement in the scientific literature that global warming is human caused.

So people not admitting that «climate change» is human cause... don't understand any of the points above.

Current atmospheric CO2 levels are higher than at any time since at least a million years ago, and there is no notable scientific dissent from the consensus position that global warming is happening, is human caused, and presents a global problem.

Analysis of the Cook et al. (2013) paper revealed that of the papers that actually addressed the attribution question, just 64 papers (0.5 % of ~ 12,000) identified by Cook and colleagues were classified as (1) explicitly endorsing the quantified position that most (more than half) of the warming since 1950 was human caused.

Why would we trust climatologists when a more mature science like meteorology when there is a lot less of a belief that climate change is human caused in the meteorology world?»

Pruitt and Perry seem to be talking more about the attribution question and whether or not there is any human caused threat?

with the connotation that it is human caused.

The first sentence says that they are 95 % certain that at least half of the warming of the period (5.0 / 2 = 0.25 C) is human caused.

More scientifically knowledgeable people will know that most climate scientists say that most of the warming of the last century was human caused.

The former is a given, no «consensus» needed, the later, that's where the dogma lies when it is claimed to be the «consensus» that it's human caused as the mechanism.

Just think, we now have a clear explanation for why they feel it is okay to claim the «consensus» they found is humans cause 50 + % of global warming.

This unfortunately confirms the validity of the Global Climate Models which means we are warming and it is human caused.

It is now a well established fact that global warming is occurring and the change in climate forcing is human caused.

Second he wrongly claims isotopes are the only evidence for CO2 rise being human caused.

84.2 % of respondents picked one of the two answer options that correspond to the canonical «more than half» or «most» of global warming that according to the IPCC is human caused.

There are multiple lines of evidence that the recent CO2 rise is human caused.

I decided to just go with Bolts interpretation as the official skeptic line on this matter — ie that Salby is claiming that the evidence for CO2 rise being human caused has been refuted — but the downside is that even if I successfully prove that wrong skeptics will claim I have errected a strawman because Salby never said that... (even though that's what half the skeptics «took home» from it)

On one of the following sites, scientists that don't believe global warming is human caused go to argue their points.

We have no reliable means to determine what percentage of atmospheric CO2 is human caused at any specific point in time.

How do we know current global warming is human caused, or man made?

To understand why «this current» global warming is human caused and not natural cycle, one needs to get an idea of what the natural cycle is and what are the basic mechanisms that cause climate change in the natural cycle.

When you realize how solid the science is that CO2 rise is human caused, you can read articles like that Nova one and spot all the little propaganda tricks.

The title of the article is, «The 97 % v the 3 % — just how much global warming are humans causing?».

«I am growing weary of the variety of emotional, misleading, and policy - useless statements like «most warming since the 1950s is human caused» or «97 % of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to warming», neither of which leads to the conclusion we need to substantially increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor people to death for the greater good.