Climate scientists write tentatively; their opponents are certain they’re wrong

Graffiti attributed to Banksy. (credit: flickr user: Duncan Hull)

Scientific language, like science itself, is usually pretty tentative. Scientists write cautiously, using words like “possible,” “probable,” and “might” to communicate that their work deals with evidence and suggestions, rather than certainty. Using stronger language in scientific writing is unusual, because it’s not often that evidence leads to absolute knowledge about a subject.

Of course, language itself is not an indication of the strength of the evidence; it can really only tell us how people are using that evidence to make an argument, and whether they’re doing so tentatively or forcefully. So, looking at how two opposing sides of a scientific argument use language to make their case can tell us something about their thinking.

It can be especially interesting to look at the use of tentative and forceful language in the case of climate change, where the language can be inflammatory. Scientists who describe the likely future path of our habitat often face the accusation of “alarmism.”