https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51094919
Can informed scientists be too cautious in their choice of language, and how much of that is an over-reaction to the tendency of the uninformed to proclaim with absolute certainty upon things which they evidently understand very poorly - my cautious perception, lol!
As 'researchers said' here, it's '"common sense" that human-induced heating is playing a role', but the increased thermal energy in the global system is certain (not cautious) to be influencing every component of the system, not necessarily in obvious ways, and is therefore likely to be triggering events which are currently, cautiously, attributed to 'natural' causes.
I understand the need to be cautious with specifics, otherwise you just provide ammunition to individuals and vested interests who will seize upon ways to challenge the numbers to try to shoot down the bigger argument, but I think perhaps that caution has spread too much into the general message with statements like '"This (the fires) would have happened naturally but we can be confident that they have been made hotter because of man-made climate change," said Prof Betts.'. We certainly can't be sure that all of the fires would have happened naturally, nor that they would have been of the same scale. |  |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
