nakatago wrote:JR8 wrote:Words like 'definitely' are used by politicians not scientists
that doesn't even make sense
Oh dearie me, here we go! It makes sense to me...
Scientists carrying out research rarely come out with sweeping conclusions that something is definite. I'd suggest that they are more likely to use phrasing like 'It appears probable', or 'Our work suggests' and so on. That is because a piece of research is always open to other scientists debunking it in future, therefore by definition one cannot claim it it definite.
I think this applies even more so where you not looking at what has happened (i.e. fact based), but are modelling and projecting into the future. You are doing no more than making predictions, and one definite is that they can never be definite, you are dealing with probabilities.
Now consider politicians. They are going to get no traction and make no headway if they come out and announce ‘Research suggests that there is a 50-65% probability that carbon dioxide is a contributing factor in climate change and therefore we need to raise trillions of dollars in new taxes from you to attempt to avert the possibility that that is correct’. Between the scientists and politicians the probabilities morph into absolutes and imperatives. The IPCC reports are a good example of that whole linguistic journey taking place in a single document, the front section being a briefing document for politicians.
I recall about 5 or so years ago, when David Miliband was the UK Climate Change Secretary he appeared on a politics discussion show and was absolutely adamant that man made climate change was a bullet-proof fact. He used phrases like ‘The science is settled’, ‘the causes are beyond dispute’, ‘there is total consensus in the scientific community’, none of which of course could be true. I looked on pretty stunned. Basically this language is designed to immediately close any debate, to not allow a scientific possibility to be considered as just that, i.e. something open to debate and testing. It is saying ‘Look, it’s a fact, now moving on this is how we intend to address this fact’.
Not too long after that I came upon a paper from a UK think-tank called the IPPR. It was unashamedly a briefing document for politicians on how to sell the climate change issue to the public. As I recall it was written communications psychologists. There sure enough was one section on what language, words and phrases, to use and there was ‘definite, settled, consensus, beyond question, everybody agrees’ and so much more. I wish I could find it again as it was a master-class in selling something very expensive to a sceptical customer. Another thing it repeated, ‘If you state enough times that man-made climate change is unquestionable’, eventually the audience will believe that to be true.
Sorry for rambling on so long, I hope my comment is a little clearer now
I'll rephrase that...
