Sentences with phrase «human causation of»

The Cook et al study aimed to show the extent of (qualitative and quantitative) agreement with human causation of warming.

I am intrigued by the argument that historic temperature reconstructions play no part in the proof if human causation of recent warming.

Most of the issues you mention are secondary to the main points of (former) dispute covered in the post, namely the reality and human causation of global warming.

Still, they find a strong consensus on human causation of climate change: 87.4 % of respondents are to some extent convinced that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, the result of anthropogenic causes (question v007).

It's now frightening how little climate science is known by both sides of the debate on human causation of global warming.

If Romney is claiming that there is no evidence of human causation of warming this is either a lie or reckless disregard for the truth.

Even assuming for the sake of argument that there is more scientific uncertainty about human causation of warming than that recognized by the mainstream scientific view, as we have explained in Ethicsandclimate.org before in numerous articles (See.

It is not clear from candidate Romney's stated position about human causation of observable warming whether he is claiming that there is no evidence of human causation or alternatively that there is significant scientific uncertainty about links between human activities and observed warming.

By attacking the level of certainty that people may hold with regard to either the existence of or human causation of global warming, climate change denial has attractions for those outside the inner circle of beneficiaries from the fossil fuel industry who do not want to reckon with either changes in their own lifestyle or with the increased role of government required by effective climate action.

This question, following up on question one, is designed to expose the fact that there is a strong ethical duty to assume human causation of climate change if there is reliable evidence of human causation and that those who seek to justify non-action on climate change because they claim that human causation has not been proven have a very strong ethical duty to demonstrate that humans are not causing climate change with high levels of proof.

It is clearly an untruth to assert there is no evidence of human causation of observable warming even if one believes that human causation is not completely proven.

Whereas belief in the human causation of global warming is overwhelmingly high among the scientists who specialize in the subject, belief in it decreases among the U.S. public to the extent that a member of the public feels confident that he or she understands it.

Donna Bethell recently complained to the Washington Post about an article that mentioned human causation of global warming:

However, the strong evidence that supports the climate science and human causation of climate change doesn't warrant equal weight with minority claims, often disputed by other research, that are not credible, they add.

Not exact matches

The convergence model represents human communication as a dynamic, cyclical process over time, characterized by (1) mutual causation rather than one - way mechanistic causation, and emphasizing (2) the interdependent relationship of the participants, rather than a bias toward either the gisource» or the «receiver» of «messages.»

The implication is that all causation exerted within and by human beings must finally be reducible (ontologically if not epistemically) to the causal efficacy of the elementary particles constituting the human body.

Confusing correlations with causations represents one of the most common human errors of logic.

All the causality exercised on a present event, therefore, must come from prior events; no present event, including a moment of human experience, can exert causation upon itself so as to be (partially) self - determining.

An act of human perception (in the primary mode) provides an example of causation which can be generalized to the relations between other actual entities.

Third, efficient causation dependably passes on novelties introduced so that human purpose involving vast reaches of time and space may be expressed.

The coercive power of efficient causation is necessary for actualization, provides for dependable generalizations which may guide human purpose, and furnishes a matrix of relativity in which the purpose may be expressed.

Human purpose would be futile if efficient causation did not maintain stable patterns of predictability in the world.

Final causation is concerned with one aspect of the subjective side of entities, be they humans or electrons.

While such a goal is the objective of human communities, are we able to identify an even broader set of final causations?

I am not suggesting that Griffin begins with all that he wants to save in the way of human consciousness, mental causation, and free agency.

The causation vs. correlation issue is perhaps a little easier to discuss than big ethical questions that involve changing the germline DNA of human beings because ethical questions do not usually have a scientific answer, let alone a right answer.

Sama Alshaibi's multi-media artworks disinters negotiations in spaces of conflict: the causation and aftermath of war and exile, the clashes between nation and citizenry, the vexatious dynamics of humans competing for land, resources and power, and finally, one's own internal battle for control through fear and fearlessness.

How do you separate the effects of human causation from whatever self - correcting mechanism occurs in nature over time?

3) In order to assert human causation, I would think the data would have to show that, for example, Rocky Mountain National Park had continued unabated to the present day the cooling trend established from approximately 1750 through 1850, while the Houston Ship Channel area exhibited the warming trend since the onset of industrial activity.

The detection of human causation is basically an excercise in explaining the variations we've seen.

-- WUWT, yesterday — to denial of human causation, to denial of the potential seriousness of the issue.

«An additional 6 % answered «I do not believe we know enough to determine the degree of human causation.

Most climate researchers simply assume recent warming is manmade, but human causation is only one possible explanation out of several

But neglecting causation in the opposite direction (clouds cause temperature) can lead to large errors in our understanding of how and why the climate system changes, as well as in our diagnosis of how sensitive the climate system is to human influences.»

But many climate scientists bristle at its application in the global warming debate, saying the basic question of human causation has been litigated many times over by the community.

Yet some of the most frequently repeated claims made by those engaged in the climate change disinformation campaign have been outright untruths about such things as the claim that the entire scientific basis for human induced climate change is a hoax or that there is no evidence of human causation.

And (2) with regard to its main rationale, carbon emissions cause warming, the vector of causation is backwards: atmospheric CO2 concentration follows global warming, empirically and theoretically, while human emissions are lost in the noise.

In addition, Whitmarsh (2009) observed that «global warming» evokes stronger connotations of human causation, whereas «climate change» evokes stronger connotations of natural causation.

To claim there is no scientific evidence of human causation is either a lie or reckless disregard for the truth.

Some of that would count as evidence of AGW, especially if it's the kind of impact that is somehow contingent on human - causation.

There are numerous evidential lines of causation of the current warming, pointing to human activity.

More specifically in regard to the question of human causation, opponents of climate change policies that deny human causation should be expected to specifically respond to the numerous «foot - print» and «attribution» studies that the international community has relied on to make conclusions about human causation.

But when this topic is examined in detail, most of the experts — including mainstream liberals who believe in climate change and human causation — understand that what they don't know is far greater than what they do understand.

(Fingerprint studies draw conclusions about human causation that can be deduced from: (a) how the Earth warms in the upper and lower atmosphere, (b) warming in the oceans, (c) night - time vs day - time temperature increases, (d) energy escaping from the upper atmosphere versus energy trapped, (e) isotopes of CO2 in the atmosphere and coral that distinguish fossil CO2 from non-fossil CO2, (f) the height of the boundary between the lower and upper atmosphere, and (g) atmospheric oxygen levels decrease as CO2 levels increase.

What specific scientific references and sources do you rely upon to conclude that there is a reasonable scientific dispute about whether human actions are causing observable climate change and are you aware of the multiple «fingerprint» studies and «attribution» studies that very strongly point to human causation?

Rarely is human - induced climate change mentioned as a cause or contributing factor in the recent outbreak of sever tornadoes although questions about causation are becoming more frequent on TV and newspapers in this writer's experience.

Climate skeptic scientists have long questioned whether the effects of relatively minor (compared to other CO2 sources and sinks) human - caused emissions of CO2 have more than a minor effect on global temperatures and some have even questioned whether the UN and USEPA have even gotten the causation backwards (i.e., because on balance global temperatures affect atmospheric CO2 levels).

For instance, US politicians frequently assert that it is an open question whether humans are causing the undeniable warming that the Earth is experiencing, thus exposing ignorance of dozens of lines of independent robust evidence of human causation including attribution studies, finger print analyses, strong evidence that correlates fossil fuel use to rising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, and other physical and chemical evidence.

Moreover, a change in a respondent's estimate of the scientific consensus significantly influences the belief that climate change is happening, human - caused, and the extent to which they worry about the issue (note that belief in climate change and human causation also directly influence level of «worry»).

In general, however, Trump's Cabinet appointees have been largely noncommittal about the issue of climate change and its human causation.