Any science in which there is any uncertainty uses such qualifiers. How accurately do we know the distances to other galaxies?
Scientists and other educated people use such qualifiers because they are honest. If, like a typical denialist, I stated as a fact that global warming is no problem, I would be lying.
Perhaps 100 years from now, sea level may be 1 m higher. Or perhaps it will be 1 cm higher. The real question is, do we want to take the chance that sea level may be 1 m higher?
No, science is about hypothesis and testing to refute the hypothesis. The concept of the scientific process requires an eternity to actually "know" anything. The standard for confirmation in physics is 5 sigmas which only means we're pretty certain.
Ha! Ha! Ha! Linny, you out did yourself in stupidity. You may have even out did the Dorkster! Admit it now, you are outmatched and intimidated by Jello. Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Keep it up. You will replace the Dorkster as poster boy for GW.
In direct answer to your question: No there are sloppy scientists in all walks of science. They usually use those terms as a hedge. So if they get caught with their pants down they can say that they really didn't say what they said. Normal people understand this.
Don't be silly. Relatively few sciences are hard sciences, where you can have all the data and come up with a definite solution to a problem. Honest scientists realize that they can never have all the answers in the soft sciences, like biology, medicine, meteorology, and climatology.
Not necessarily. Jello has a lot of people blocked so he only gets a subset of answers to his questions. There are others that have something to add. Asking a related question allows for this.
Any discipline that involves complex, chaotic, or non-deterministic physical systems will speak of their results in terms of statistical probabilities. When those probabilities involve real-world effects then you start to get qualified conclusions. If climate were deterministic we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Ok, I take that last sentence back. We would still be having this discussion, but it would sound different since the climate skeptics would find something else to stop them from taking any action.
One of the few, yes. BTW, who--the hell-- is Jello?
You are spammig the forum and frankly with lame quiestions.
jello, "Is "Global Warming" the only "science" where qualifiers like "may", "could", "likely", "probably", "possibly", and such are used"?
What other disciplines don't have perfect answers?
In fact, if the answers were "perfect", would it be a cutting edge science?
Wouldn't it be more beneficial to pay scientists more if what they are working on has more of an element of the unknown?
