There’s a lot to ponder in this table. It strikes me as an important document – a compilation of one of humanity’s most tragic miscommunications.
You can click on it to make it bigger – large enough that you could embed it in a PowerPoint slide to discuss with your students or peers, if you so opted.
Thanks for putting it into context. When I saw Callan’s post over on AGU I didn’t really think about it that much, but the second dose must have been enough to cross the threshold.
When I see words like the ones in the chart, my brain automatically puts it into context by the kind of source, scientific, political, popular culture, etc. It’s so automatic that I hadn’t really thought about it.
Thanks for sharing this out into the more “popular” side of the world, so that some folk can see where the confusion starts.
Keep up the good work!
Kind Regards,
TweetingDonal (Larry Oliver)
Another word that should be considered is “skeptic”. The public thinks that it means cynic or denier where it properly should apply to one who uses the scientific method to determine what is most likely to be true. A true skeptic realizes that AGW is virtually certain with the evidence at hand.
“Skeptic” is an interesting one.
I spend a little time on a couple of medical sites as well. There, the “skeptics” are the mainstream scientific community. They are skeptical of all the non-scientific, anti-vaccination, nature-knows-best, germ theory denial, downright weird stuff out there.