Contemporary climate science is the only place I've seen such alarmism and use of buzz words like "tipping point." Yes, the world may burn up by the year 2100. It could happen. Based on the divergence of models from actual data, I would say the possibility is pretty slim.
No, they use those words in all sciences. The way it works is that you propose a theory, and then carry out experiments and/or collect evidence that either supports or fails to support the theory. Then you adjust the theory in response to the results, and start again. Eventually you will have a theory that is supported by evidence.
Of course as time goes on and improved methods of analysis are found, you may need to adjust theory in light of this. But that is exactly how science works.
In the chemical sciences, for example, it would quite normal to say something like "this oil may possibly meet the long term oxidation requirement" or "this solvent is likely to be too volatile" or "this thickening agent is possibly not compatible with a water based system" - and then you would do experiments to prove or disprove it.
If science was all based around things that were 100% definite and predictable, what would be the point of doing experiments and proposing theories?
Putting "inverted commas" around anything that you are trying to be a smart *** and claim doesn't exist is a really pathetic and amatuerish way to prove a point. Basically you might think you're a smart *** but you come across as a complete assHOLE.
Not really. Many sciences make use of probabilities and modeling. But that being said, there is a perception that science has answers that are black and white and a certainty. There is a belief that if a scientist makes a claim, then there was some process done that makes the claim a certainty, not a hypothesis. Because of this, many people (especially the media) perceive studies as definitive answers.
Much of climate science has to do with modeling. They model the current global temperature, they model the past temperatures, they model the future temperatures, they models various factors within the model. Then the results of the models get used for modeling various things like changes in environment in England, affect of AGW on coral reefs, etc.
Anytime you are modeling, you should be using words like "may", "could" and "possibly". Modeling does help people understand the system, by using a very simplified model of the system and seeing the performance of the model. Modeling does not give the answer. It gives a guess.
I am frequently critiqued here for not believing the scientists or "the experts". It is not that I don't beleive them. It is that I know what they are doing. Most of the time, they are modeling. I don't believe models. I create them myself. No model is correct, some models are useful.
1) Most scientific disciplines use qualifiers. A spaceship will "probably" make it to the moon. A specific drug "likely" inhibits a specific protein which "could" lead to the drug's effect.
2) The reason for this is that the claims which the scientists make are based in models. As such, the validity of the results is based on the truth of the models.
3) Now, all sciences use models. But climate and weather sciences are heavily based on the models since specific weather patterns will act in statistical ways. This cloud will rain over an area, but it won't rain constantly over the area. An expected snowstorm might not solidify (in which you get frozen rain), or it might be so cold that you get a torrent of hail. A tornado will cause this and that, but it's difficult to say whether it will do this in Area 1 and that in Area 2 or vice versa.
4) Getting to hard-set climate science, instead of meteorology other off-shoots, now...Anthropogenic or man-made global warming actually doesn't tend to have the qualifiers except IN TERMS OF PREDICTIONS. That humans are having an effect, and that the human effect can be diminished by changing human actions, is as definitive to the climate scientists as a specific synthesis is to organic chemists.
Now, how that effect that humans are having now will affect the world in the future...that is highly qualified. But that's because to make the predictions relies on the scientist making use of specific models in order to, well, PREDICT THE FUTURE.
If the model turns out to be wrong (say, it ignores the effect of monkeys smoking cigars) then the prediction will be wrong, just as a matter of logic. If something changes so that the model is no longer applicable (say, all humans die from a revitalization of the Bubonic Plague) then the prediction will no longer be applicable, just as a matter of logic.
And even if the model is right, it will necessarily affect specific areas differently. The Sahara Desert won't spread in a perfect circle, even if the area that it expands is exactly as climate scientists predict. Which rivers face how intense an algal bloom is varied because while one river might face twice-as-intense-as-expected an algal bloom as average, another river won't have any algal bloom. Rising sea level would have to account for water filling in valleys and flowing around uneven shapes such as mountains and trees and such, so it would be an effectively-higher rise in an island-style land Greenland or Australia than it would be in a giant land-mass such as Russia.
In short, your question ignores both scientific knowledge and the philosophy of science.
<
They didn't? How come you are so sure about that? Or are you mixing up NASA PR press releases with actual paper based science?
The likelihood that you will die in the next plane trip is minimal and hence the airline of your choice will assure you you'll be safe with them. But in Science, there is no such thing as Absolute Certainty.
As for your Space Shuttle, a quick Google Scholar search gives loads of scientific papers using probability rather than simplistic terms to describe Space Shuttle related risk assessments.
Notice how you never read about things like the calculated power of the experiment, rational sample size, certainty probability calculations, tools like ANOVA to compare data sets. Antrhopogenic global warming is junk science at it best (or worst depending on your perspective).
No. Contrary to the misinformation in your post, such qualifiers are routine in ALL scientific disciplines where ongo8iing research is involved.
No but a lying moron like you can't be expected to understand how science works, you having flunked kindergarten
You have not learned anything about science since the 7th grade, huh? That is pretty much the standard for Deniers. It is not just limited knowledge, it is bad knowledge. Deniers somehow have managed to achieved a level of stupidity where they actually know less than someone who knows nothing about science - for example, you inability to recognize the difference between science and engineering. Maybe that partially explains why most Deniers are also pathological liars.
Its not science its control , Carbon taxes to save the world yet it wont affect anything except high prices
Other real science there is no question about the results as they are calculated. No one from NASA ever stated that it's "likely" there's enough fuel in the space shuttle for a "possible" successful launch that "could" get it into orbit. Do global warming "scientist" depend on these qualifiers too much and do they give them an out when their predictions fail?
I study canine intelligence to see what a canine thinks of our technology.
I use qualifying terms all the time because most of my work deals with the question ---
Can a canine learn to read and write?
Using Bliss Symbols (a picture language for people who cannot speak or write) I have taught me Labrador Retriever to read. She can read and paw point to 125 symbols.
I made a boot for her to hold a marker, and she is learning to dray straight lines and circles.
NEXT STEP -- Can she draw the Bliss Symbols?
A good critique. Any predictor should use "might" and "likely".
NASA engineering is more well known than science, so that i snot a good analogy.
BS. Read real science papers
