Do AGW alarmists have a language of their own

Question

It seems that every other word is a qualifier and now 'we' think it's worse than 'we' used think it was before.

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/our-melting-planet-ominous-warning-signs-in-the-arctic-20080803-3pc9.html

This is a real quote:

"There are some scientists out there who think that even might be optimistic."

It's similar to english, but not the same.

Answer 1

your carbon breathprint, may, in the future be offset by methanization of energy and therefore render you and your ilk as inconsequential to the troposphere as china is.

they're the gods of conservation.

Answer 2

It's the language of science. Everything in science is subject to change as new data comes in. That's why scientists are such a conservative lot, and so seldom willing to make any definitive statement. Every scientist knows he might be proven wrong by some other guy tomorrow.

And that's why, when thousands of scientists stand up and say something definitive, you'd better listen. Because that doesn't happen unless it's pretty damned important.

Global warming is happening.

We're responsible.

And we can fix it.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.h...

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg3.h...

Answer 3

Yes. It's called science and mathematics. Things the "skeptics don't know or care about.  By their  own admission they don't understand science--yet they have the arrogance to criticize those who do--and even make snide remarks about how a sentence is phrased when they admit they don't know what is being discussed.

Pathetic! And these "skeptics" actually seem to expect people to take them seriously.  You gatta wonder what htey've been smoking!

Answer 4

This isn't even an answer to your question. However, it is interesting the impact punctuation can have. Attend:

"There are some scientists out there who think--that even might be optimistic."

Answer 5

Yes, a debate in the use of English that should disprove AGW, this is probably some of the strongest evidence deniers have posted to date.

Answer 6

There's been a few questions asked today that I can relate with.

I'll try to keep it short and sweet. During my early educational years, I asked a Bio instructor in so many words the same thing. The reason was learning at least ten different nomenclatures for the word skin confused me. His modest reply: It doesn't matter what the label. As long as you know what it means...profound concept.

I took this a step farther and came up with the conclusion. That arrogance is self taught.

Answer 7

Wow!  That sounds an awful lot like this:

"Hello world. There are still courses in the United States that I am not allowed to play because of the colour of my skin. Hello world. I've heard that I'm not ready for you. Are you ready for me?" - Tiger Woods, in a Nike commercial.

Woods later had to admit he had never been denied admission to any course, nor did he have any knowledge of a single course with such a policy.  I wouldn't say it's a language unique to AGW zealots...it's used by anyone trying to sell you something.  It's called "spin".

Answer 8

Yes, it's called "science".

EVERY major scientific organization has issued an official statement that this is real, and mostly caused by us.  The National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Association, etc.

I suppose to a denier, this is "alarmist"?  It's the position of the National Academy of Sciences, the US' most elite scientific organization, chock full of Nobel Prize winners;

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to begin taking steps to prepare for climate change and to slow it. Human actions over the next few decades will have a major influence on the magnitude and rate of future warming. Large, disruptive changes are much more likely if greenhouse gases are allowed to continue building up in the atmosphere at their present rate. However, reducing greenhouse gas emissions will require strong national and international commitments, technological innovation, and human willpower."

Good websites for more info:

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.a...

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sci...

Answer 9

It's unfortunate that you find the subtleties of science and the fact that ALL science is tentative (willing to change whenever new evidence/data warrants it) confusing.  But scientists are too honest to use the kinds of absolutist terms of religious zealots and political pundits on radio and TV.

If you want to hear someone tell you with "certainty" exactly what's going to occur, then I'd suggest you go to a fortune teller with a crystal ball.  I, however, prefer the honesty and precise language used by scientists.

Answer 10

The Democrats will do nothing that might give us some relief on our gas problems. Need to tell them to supply the fuel or get out of the way so it can be done...

Answer 11

It is unfortunate that science and technology find it necessary to adopt not only a vocabulary but even a shorthand form of that vocabulary. There would be a great deal of benefit in repeatedly using the terms in common layman's  use.

Now this would only be true when the public has to be taught about the issues. And even then, it may be necessary for members of the public to learn some 'prerequisite' facts.

"There are some scientists out there who think that even might be optimistic.

The direct quote above is entirely clear to me. While the scientific community has agreed with an estimate as being highly probable, there are some who feel that this estimate is too low. I personally do not like to see unidentified scientists accused of harboring  views at variance with the consensus. This practice makes it permissible for anyone to make any claims apparently backed by science. If one intends to make a claim, it should be based on published opinions of named scientists, only.  

Answer 12

I think they do.  For the lunatic green, no amount of conservation is good enough.  They will simply adopt more and more extreme anti-civilization positions.

Their real goal is to just be anti-establishment, anti-capital, pro-tax, pro-government control.  They think their the first people in history to come up with these idiotic positions.  

They haven't the foggiest clue how their green agenda is intimately tied into European hatred of the U.S. and wouldn't know critical thinking if it bit them in the ***.

They really are ignorant enough to think that *thousands* of "scientists" (never mind a lot of them are assistants and politicians) all agree that catastrophe is imminent if action isn't taken.

Calling them alarmist is really giving them too much credit.  Self-righteous lunacy is a much more accurate description.