<attribute> this largely to a climate change–linked explosion

< Previous | Next >

NewAmerica

Banned
Mandarin
By using "attribute", Kantar is talking about causation rather than correlation between moose decline and tick population explosion. Am I on the right track?

Finding correlation is relatively easier than finding causation. The latter finds the cause behind a disaster. So Kantar's finding is cool.

The problem is that Kantar uses an adjective "climate change–linked" to modify the explosion, which appears to make the causation less clear. Is "climate change" also a direct cause of the tick explosion? Is this climate change human-caused? Is it caused by nature (e.g. unknown earth temperature rising in that region)? Well, too many variants here to determind. Hence I have this thread.

The question of this thread is whether my understanding of "By using "attribute", Kantar is talking about causation rather than correlation" is correct or not.

*********************
As Winters Warm, Blood-Sucking Ticks Drain Moose Dry
Researchers across New England and Canada scramble to protect the iconic species from growing parasite populations
<..........................>
Moose numbers have declined roughly 10 percent in Maine and as much as 50 percent in New Hampshire since the early 2000s; Kantar and his colleagues in New England attribute this largely to a climate change–linked explosion in winter tick populations.

Source: Scientific American
 
  • Uncle Jack

    Senior Member
    British English
    By using "attribute", Kantar is talking about causation rather than correlation between moose decline and tick population explosion. Am I on the right track?
    Yes, and you have expressed it correctly, the part in bold at any rate. I would have added a comma after "correlation", to make it clear that "between moose decline and tick population explosion" applies to both "causation" and "correlation", and "explosion" should have an article (it is clearly countable in the original).

    "Climate change-linked" does not really imply "causation"; linked is too weak a word for this. There is nothing to say that the climate change in question is man-made.

    By using "largely", the writer is saying there are other factors in the decline in moose numbers, but that these are small compared to the explosion in tick populations.
     

    grassy

    Senior Member
    Polish
    Is this climate change human-caused? Is it caused by nature (e.g. unknown earth temperature rising in that region)?
    Climate change, as used in this text and pretty much everywhere else these days, refers to the current changes in the global climate. So we're not talking about any regions here but the whole planet.
    As to whether it's human-made, science has a pretty straightforward answer to that, so you should do your research.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top