So yes, as you point out, it has become common of late for scientists to
use weasel words like «might» and «could» and «possibly».
It's a true sentence because
you used the weasel words «may or may not».
That DA from Central NY who was one of the co-chairs (I think) STILL
uses weasel words when he discusses the failure of the the Commission.
The nationalizing coalition
uses weasel words because their entire project depends on stealth.
Should we be commenting that they are
using weasel words where «past decades» does not include the current decade?
Not exact matches
More importantly, promiscuous
use of these
weasel words corrupts the English language.
You don't have to eliminate
weasel words from your vocabulary, but for heaven's sake think twice before you
use them.
Now «revelation» is to a considerable degree a «
weasel -
word,» to
use a term employed nowadays by some of the semanticists; that is, it is a
word which is susceptible of many meanings and which therefore must be defined if we are to grasp the significance which it possesses for Christians.
That's why they love the passive voice so much in addition to the
use of
weasel words.
So IPCC retained its conclusion reached by alleged PDF averaging, simply concealing its faulty methodology, pretending to have
used a lesser - known, advanced methodology by introducing the
weasel -
words, well - established.
Now, you
use the standard
weasel words.
and this leading light of the consensus community
uses her own blog to claim, not only that the IPCC did not overstate certainty, but that it
used «underwhelming
weasel words» in grossly «exaggerating» uncertainty.
Rather,
using such under - whelming
weasel words only adds to the deliberate public confusion regarding climate change.
There is denial within governments, where spin - doctors
use «
weasel words» to pretend they are taking action.
The
use of the
weasel word «suggests» doesn't convince either.
«Appears» is a
weasel word,
used frequently by those of the alarmist persuasion..