Sentences with phrase «whether humans are»

Every day, we hear of relationships failing and questions of whether humans are meant to be monogamous.

In «La Pachamama y el humano,» Zaffaroni questions whether humans are the only ones who hold rights, pointing to the citizen in ancient Rome to illustrate how the notion of an entitlement to rights can change over time.

If the public think scientists disagree about whether humans are causing global warming, then they don't support climate action.

«Mounting evidence has forced an end to any serious scientific debate on whether humans are causing global warming.

(Reuters)- The world should stop arguing about whether humans are causing climate change and start taking action to stop dangerous temperature rises, the president of the World Bank said.

In Cook et al. (2013), we broadened the focus beyond definitions that quantify the human contribution, because there's a consensus gap on the mere question of whether humans are causing global warming.

the debate is over in terms of whether humans are contributing to climate change.

There is no disagreement among climate scientists about whether humans are warming the Earth by burning fossil fuels and polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases.

In Trenberth, it is simply shifting the null as to whether humans are or are not affecting the climate; in Curry, it is what that effect size is.

Most of the time, he says he doesn't know whether humans are causing global climate change.

Here's more of what she said, Palin told Couric that while global warming is «real», but added that it «kind of doesn't matter» whether humans are to blame for it.

The contention is whether humans are definitively affecting change in negative ways.

In an October 2005 op - ed article Dr Kurt M. Cuffey stated «Mounting evidence has forced an end to any serious scientific debate on whether humans are causing global warming».

Fortunately, O'Keefe has not appeared on the networks in recent years, although he did publish an op - ed in the Wall Street Journal casting doubt on whether humans are the primary cause of global warming.

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.

In this situation the government official has a strong duty to go beyond his or her own uninformed opinion about whether humans are causing dangerous climate change.

But there remains the question of whether humans are intelligent enough to survive the Anthropocene.

How can we tell our orb is actually warming and whether humans are to blame?

According to its 2012 fundraising document, Heartland is paying a US Department of Energy (DOE) official named David Wojick $ 5,000 a pop for modules teaching high school students that «whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy.»

The curriculum, for which Heartland plans to pay a total $ 200,000, asserts that «whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy.»

His minister for Social Services, Kevin Andrews, has said the «jury is still out» on whether humans are causing climate change.

As I heard Penn State climate scientist Dr. Richard Alley during his talk at Climate One meeting at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco last December, «Scientists are no longer debating (whether humans are causing) climate change because that is no longer a useful discussion.»

In addition, if climate change is a moral problem, even assuming counter-factually that there is considerable scientific uncertainty about whether humans are causing serious global warming, those who are putting others at risk have duties to not endanger vulnerable people without their consent.

Unfortunately, many people are stuck on the idea that scientists disagree whether humans are causing climate change.

The thing that is pertinent is whether humans are altering the climate, how and how much our activities will alter it, and what we might do about it or adapt to it.

What's largely lost in the sparring — Crichton's team prevails in an audience vote — is that the debate has not been about whether humans are contributing to rising temperatures.

The answer to the question (in the headline post) ultimately depends on whether humans are at least reasonably smart or whether humans on average are not very intelligent after all.

The IPCC can't really do this kind of thing, because it has been optimized to carry out a far more narrow technical task — answer whether climate change is occurring and whether humans are the blame, and if so how bad it might get in the future.

The curriculum would claim, for instance, that «whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy.»

[ANDY REVKIN says: He was indeed expressing this view at the meeting, but got significant pushback from some participants, while others were clearly invited because they shared his skeptical views — mainly on the certainty of the conclusions, less on whether humans are exerting an influence on climate.

The discussions about the past millennium are not discussions about whether humans are changing climate; neither do they affect our projections for the future.

The office of Senator James Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican and ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, released a report online today listing hundreds of scientists and links to peer - reviewed studies that it says challenge whether humans are dangerously influencing climate.

The country is, however, in almost complete denial on the subject of global warming — not only whether something should be done, but whether humans are involved at all.

How is your question relevant to the issue of whether humans are causing climate change IN ADDITION to the natural changes?

We can argue about how to deal with manmade climate change and we can argue about how bad the impacts will be but arguing about whether there is global warming or whether humans are causing it is, quite frankly, absurd.

Playing cat - specific videos whose themes range from birds and butterflies to squirrels and mice will keep them endlessly entertained whether their humans are with them or not.

Along the way, they delve into such essential questions as whether humans are biologically compelled to make myths; what is the evolutionary connection between religious ecstasy and sexual orgasm; what do Near Death Experiences reveal about the nature of spiritual phenomena; and how does ritual create its own neurological environment.

The result is a mix of heavily derivative plot devices and intriguing themes concerning whether humans are worthy for the next world.

The curriculum would claim, for instance, that «whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy.»

The students, even those who correctly marked «true,» were slower to answer those questions than questions about whether humans are descended from tree - dwelling creatures (also true but easier to grasp) and whether the moon goes around the Earth (also true but intuitive).

The real question we are faced with is not whether humans are changing climate.

Ernst, who has questioned whether humans are contributing to higher temperatures, was one of those targeted by Steyer.

The HDST could finally answer the question of whether humans are alone in the Universe, by directly probing the atmospheres of dozens of extrasolar planets for signs of life.

If we are really asking whether humans are the only primates that feel sorrow, then we do not know the answer.

Researchers have discovered tell - tale signs of Alzheimer's disease in 20 elderly chimpanzee brains, rekindling a decades - old debate over whether humans are the only species that develop the debilitating condition.

«I think this paper strengthens, substantially, the available body of literature that we have concerning the question of whether humans are having an effect on precipitation at the global scale,» Zwiers wrote in an email.

The world's pre-eminent atheist speculates about why he polarises people, what prompts him to take on religion and whether humans are built to be irrational

The potential health effects of phyto - oestrogens are often studied, but no one has looked at whether humans are the only primates with a taste for plants containing the chemicals, says Michael Wasserman of McGill University in Montreal, Canada.

The point of contention here is whether humans are able artificially to construct some device or prosthesis that functionally reproduces human intelligent action.

I really don't see what he gains from being indifferent and idiotic about the issue, but for the mere fact he can't make up his mind whether humans are a cause behind global climate changes makes me think this guy isn't fit to run the country.