Posted: February 24, 2012 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics

I’m reblogging this great new post from Harold Ambler, author of ‘Don’t sell your coat’ which we reviewed here on the talkshop recently. Hyperbole in climate journalism numbs the brain…

Talking About the Weather

Attention scientists and journalists: I want my word back. You don’t get to use it anymore, unless you want to admit that you are in the business of deceiving people. That word? “Ever.”

I know I’m in for it when I hear this word at home. “You don’t ever…” and “You never” and “You always” – these are statements that I’ve gotten my beloved wife to see seldom accompany truth-telling. What they do accompany is strong feeling.

And you’d need strong feelings to use the word “ever” to describe 150 years in Earth’s history: “Warmest ever,” “third warmest ever,” “hottest ever,” “fifth hottest ever,” “second warmest ever.” Taken as a whole, statements like these, which are found in articles purporting to inform the public, become incantatory, and indeed echo literal hymns sung in literal churches, worldwide: “Forever and ever and

View original post 991 more words

Comments
  1. Markus Fitzhenry says:

    I will never use ever again
    Forever I have used ever but never again
    Ever and ever will be for nether
    If you ever ask me again
    Forever I will say, never, never, never

  2. Harold Ambler says:

    lol

  3. Michael Hart says:

    Whether the weather be fine
    Or whether the weather be not
    Whether the weather be cold
    Or whether the weather be hot
    We’ll weather the weather
    Whatever the weather
    Whether we like it or not.

  4. Tenuc says:

    Vacuum is another that should be banished from physics,as it seems to be filled with mythical beasts like virtual particles, messenger photons, virtual electrons and energy… e.t.c. Doesn’t sound like any vacuum I’ve ever known!

  5. Zeke says:

    “You always, you never, Forever, and Ever, and Ever”

    These types of statements are always the result of sloppy and emotive thinking. They never accompany careful or precise meanings which can lead to real understanding between the sender and the receiver in communication. To catch it in one’s own thought process first is forever a challenge.

    Ever helpful, Zeke