Who needs to clarify between what’s certain and what’s possible, when it’s so much more useful to mix those up, especially if all you want to do is push forward your single-minded agenda about upcoming climate disasters?
For an example, step forward Andrew C Revkin, AGWer extraordinaire at the New York Times, and his recent article “Increase in carbon dioxide to have dramatic effects in U.S., report says“. A few excerpts (my EMPHASIS):
“changes are unfolding in ways that are LIKELY to produce”
“main value of its PROJECTIONS”
“western states WILL face”
“anticipated water flows…are LIKELY”
“plants are LIKELY to grow…”
“…but WILL BE more subject to…”
As you can see, all you need is a clever use of tenses, then you will be able to say pretty much anything. Including: “Increase in carbon dioxide may or may not have dramatic effects in U.S., report says” 😎
Too bad there’s no “language” competition at the Olympics, otherwise Mr Revkin would have been an almost-sure winner!