> then implying that the change is entirely man-made Where did you get this? Some direct quotes from the article, emphasis added: "…human activities, especial

> then implying that the change is entirely man-made Where did you get this? Some direct quotes from the article, emphasis added: "…human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse (heat-trapping) gases, are primarily responsible for recent observed climate change." "…it is possible to attribute some extreme weather to climate change." "…significant advances have been made linking human influence to individual extreme weather events since the last National Climate Assessment was produced in 2014. Still, it notes, crucial uncertainties remain." "…“relatively strong evidence” showed that a man-made factor contributed to the extreme weather." "Worldwide, the draft report finds it “extremely likely” that more than half of the global mean temperature increase since 1951 can be linked to human influence." "Human activity, the report goes on to say, is a primary culprit." Nothing here comes close to asserting that the change is entirely man-made. In fact, the article is quite careful to avoid saying that, over and over again. This doesn't require an especially close reading to discover. Rather, you would have to go out of your way to distort what the article is saying in order to reach the conclusion that you did. FWIW, I doubt you're engaging in this distortion on purpose. More likely it's a subconscious reaction to encountering information that you don't want to be true.