The proponents of
human caused climate change seem to be in a panic and most sceptics carry a smirk.
Not exact matches
If you listen to global warming deniers, or even much of the public, it
seems like there is some stack of scientific studies somewhere that refute anthropogenic —
human -
caused —
climate change.
With an issue like
human -
caused climate change, or the devastation of ocean - roaming species like bluefin tuna, it
seems again that the old kind of framing doesn't work any more.
It
seems safe to say that there is no scientific basis for asserting a
climate change signal (
human caused or otherwise) underlying the decades - long trend of escalting economic impacts related to extreme events.
From what data exists about previous peroids of rapid
climate change (i.e.
climate change caused by an intrinsic mechanism such as a meteor impact, massive volcanic activity or
human activity, as opposed to sun cycles), it
seems that
climate does show such behavior too.
That bold statement may
seem like hyperbole, but there is now a very clear pattern in the scientific evidence documenting that the earth is warming, that warming is due largely to
human activity, that warming is
causing important
changes in
climate, and that rapid and potentially catastrophic
changes in the near future are very possible.
The discovery in the mid 19th century that there had been ice ages in the distant past proved that
climate could
change radically over much of the globe, a
change vastly beyond anything mere
humans seemed able to
cause.
Based on new research, federal scientists suggest that an apparent recent slowdown in global warming — a common talking point for many people who dispute
human -
caused climate change — did not occur, but only
seemed so based on incorrect data.
There are lots of attributes that
seem to work as reliable predictors that a person or group will reject the science of
human -
caused climate change and the risks that come from it.
The main goal of WRI is to protect the global climatic system from further harm
caused from greenhouse gas emissions, and assist in
human adaptation to
climate change that
seems to be unavoidable.
Second, the consensus on
human caused climate change is not as overwhelming as you
seem to think.
He just can't
seem to grasp what the vast majority of Americans and scientists have already figured out:
climate change is real, it is happening now and
human activities are
causing it.»
It would
seem that you are making these comments solely because your political viewpoint doesn't have any solution for such a problem as
climate change caused by widescale
human emissions of a GH gas.
It may
seem reasonable, then, to assume this year's record - breaking weather event was tangible evidence of
human -
caused climate change.
Because slowly increasing temperatures don't
seem alarming, the «availability entrepreneurs» push extreme weather events and public health impacts as being
caused by
human -
caused climate change, more of which is in store if we don't quickly act to cool the planet by reducing fossil fuel emissions.
So it
seems quite clear that there is a potential connection, in a statistical sense, between
human -
caused global warming, declining Arctic sea ice, and the anomalous blocking pattern this winter that has added to other factors we know are tied to
human -
caused climate change (warmer temperatures and increased soil evaporation, and decreased winter snowpack and freshwater runoff) to produce the unprecedented drought this year in California.
As Media Matters is pointing out, Matt Drudge (as well as plenty of other media outlets)
seems to have not gotten that memo: It May Not Be Unanimous... But It's Pretty Close Despite conclusions by the IPCC that global
climate change is actually occurring and
humans are very likely the
cause of it, somehow the idea has entered the mainstream media that every time it snows it's further evidence that those kooky, socialist, hair - shirt - wearing environmentalists have gotten it all wrong.