Interesting you should bring up my old nemesis Steven Schneider... I became a pariah in graduate school for being my impertinent public disagreement with a professor who quoted him (”To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”)
You are aware, no doubt, of Dr. Schneider’s earlier comments on climate.
So you seem to be in the camp that calls a semi-automatic hunting rifle an "assault weapon" just beacuse "the usage has been decided" by the gubmint.
When you don’t recognize the political stakes and terms of the debate, in this case national sovereignty, and personal freedom. You loose.
The debate is political, not scientific.
" 'science for policy' must be recognized as a different enterprise than 'science itself"
Your issues are a nonstarter in the international political debate where the real fight must be fought.
You are aware, no doubt, of Dr. Schneider’s earlier comments on climate.
Of that I am very much aware, I am also aware the Schneider and his ilk will win, if we don't take on the "science for policy", i.e. political fight that must be fought far a beyond that of science fact.
Losing the propaganda war by falling into the bait and switch semantic trap will be the real disaster. Conceding the existence of "Climate Change" by allowing the inclusion of that treaty defined term into law out of lack of understanding the import of its meaning under treaties and international law will indeed be death knell of political debate that stands before us.
So you seem to be in the camp that calls a semi-automatic hunting rifle an "assault weapon" just beacuse "the usage has been decided" by the gubmint.
So how many folks have lost the .legal battle for failing to recognize the the usage of that term in law?
They one that round very handily I would say, because we allowed them to define the usage of said term in law and the courts and have been paying a heavy price ever since.
Common usage means nothing in a court of law, the legal and treaty definitions rule whenever they are defined in statute; A condition to the detriment of many a person attempting to fight a legal and political battle not recognising the political meanings of the terms of art they are faced with.
Argue science when the fight is one of politics will ultimately loose the war that much be fought in these issues.