Wrt human or natural occurrence with the fires..
One is CO2 fertilization and the other is N fertilization... either or both could occur and would increase in general at the same time and amount
wrt human fossil fuel burning.
WRT human contribution to observed warming circa 2014 Gavin Schmidt indicates the human contribution is likely 110 % of observed due to the cooling effect of anthropogenic SO2 emissions (and other).
FF, You are making sweeping generalizations, and that tells me you are naieve
wrt human interactions.
Not exact matches
WRT to the (alleged) correlation between CO2 and
human longevity: correlation is not, as our denialist friends like to stress — on alternate days, anyhow — causation.
For my two cents the two null's would be 1 - There is no
human effect on climate
wrt C02 2 - There is no significant
human effect on climate
wrt C02.
For the first a systematic disassemble of the paragraph of his speech in which the comment appears and the one following would have him looking a fool (e.g. just read the nonsense about «placing the burden of proof on showing there is no
human influence» and try and link that in some way to what scientists do
wrt null hypotheses).
I agree that
humans affect the environment in various ways, especially
wrt CFC's and methane emissions and IMO efforts should continue to control them as much as possible.
Ed, surely one can't equate a whole - body dose received radiatively (which is what all critters including
humans get in Denver) with ingested radioactives which concentrate in the food chain (which is what we'd be talking about
wrt Chernobyl wildlife!)
Societies where the brain is engaged constantly, where
human interaction dominates vs. isolated individuals engaged in disembodied communication about things that matter not at all
wrt getting from birth to death, these are dehumanizing and this that we have now is enriching?