4 ms·
Anytime an article about "climate change" use words like "could" "might" "potentially" and this one "risks" we are in speculation, not demonstration land. If t
by ThomPete 8y ago
Anytime an article about "climate change" use words like "could" "might" "potentially" and this one "risks" we are in speculation, not demonstration land.
If the science was demonstrated there would be no need to use these qualifiers. As always read these things with a grain of salt.
Yes, there will be consequences from climate change but it's not something we can't deal with and some of them are at least partially good such as added vegetation.
- EForEndeavour 8y ago> Anytime an article about "climate change" uses words like "could" "might" "potentially" and this one "risks" we are in speculation, not demonstration land. Do you not read a lot of scientific journals? Also, the article uses none of the qualifier words you listed except "risk" in an appropriate manner, in the subtitle. The title is "Europe’s Most Important River Is Running Dry." Is that demonstrative enough for you?
- ThomPete 8y agoThe header is not important as that's used to draw you in and will be the most sensationalist. What you want to look for is in the actual article and there "risks" is used which is the only important word you need to look for.
- chillacy 8y agoCorrect, just like when you read an article on HN about how new crypto laws could lead to increased surveillance / decreased privacy, articles like this are trying to promote some sort of change before we end up in somewhere we don’t want to be.
- ThomPete 8y agoThat's not the job of the media as they have no base for that.