From the warmist ClimatCentral.com… if it weren’t for “could” or “might,” there would be no “interesting climate findings.”
ClimateCentral.com reports:
From the warmist ClimatCentral.com… if it weren’t for “could” or “might,” there would be no “interesting climate findings.”
ClimateCentral.com reports:
Slywolfe:
That was included in “(and many more).”
Johnstoirvin:
You left out “not inconsistent with”
any time I see “could”, “might”, “indicated”, “should”, and words like these in a science article I know it’s pure BS made up from fictional mental aberrations of the writer.
Words used by the “settled science” crowd:
could be
might be
may be
estimated
believed to
expected to
suggests that
models indicate
(and many more)
Imagine using these words to argue a case in court. It would never be allowed, but they ARE used, and used successfully, to promote new laws and regulations including new fees and taxes! Truth and accuracy do not matter in politics and climate change.