This is a completely transparent oversimplification. Whatever floats your boat I guess.
I asked you a question that requires one of the two following responses: I agree or I disagree.
So again, I'll ask you this very simple question. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement:
"Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."
Eat yo vegetables
Guess: "to arrive at or commit oneself to an opinion about (something) without having sufficient evidence to support the opinion fully:"
The fact is that you are using words that are meant to refer to situations where information is lacking. There is not information lacking here.
Certainty is not required to be reasonable. My girlfriend is going to be home after work tonight. Am I certain? No, but it's a reasonable expectation based on past events. It would be unreasonable of me to make a different assumption based on no new information that invalidates the previous pattern. In fact, it would even be unreasonable of me to make no assumption whatsoever, given how clear the pattern has been.
Were it up to me, I would ban assault rifles and handguns. The only purpose of a handgun is to enable one person to kill another. They have no other designed capability. A handgun is an accessible, convenient, intuitive, weapon design to allow one person to quickly direct massive force towards another person with the intention of rendering that person dead. That's it. The hollow arguments of the NRA and their pet politicians do not change that fact.
Oh, so the people who are using "highly scientifically processed" statistical analyses are just "guessing."
If you do not know for certain what will happen, and you are making a statement about what you think might happen, it's a guess.
If calling it a "guess" is a gross oversimplification, then calling it "highly scientifically processed" or a "scientific projection" is a gross embellishment.