Here's the conclusion from the paper itself: The differences between deglacial and modern warming preclude us from unequivocally ruling out the possibility of

Here's the conclusion from the paper itself: The differences between deglacial and modern warming preclude us from unequivocally ruling out the possibility of large-scale natural methane releases to the atmosphere from old carbon reservoirs in the future. Our results do, however, suggest that such releases are unlikely. This is consistent with recent atmospheric observations, which suggest that renewed growth of atmospheric CH4 since 2006 is not driven by emissions from the Arctic29, where the most vulnerable old carbon reservoirs are located today. Instead, our results support the hypothesis that any future increases in natural CH4 emissions to the atmosphere will be driven by contemporaneous sources such as wetlands. https://sci-hub.se/10.1038/nature23316 https://sci-hub.se/10.1038/nature23316 Another piece of context is that the "don't have to worry" quote was from "Scripps Oceanography geoscientist Jeff Severinghaus, who has been involved with this research project since 2000 and leads the study of ice core records at Scripps." He's in no way a global warming skeptic, but rather an advocate of decarbonization by 2050 to reduce anthropogenic warming, yet he says the sudden arctic methane release is something we don't have to worry about. There is always more context. Basically anything can be "potentially deceptive", but that does not mean that it is either deceptive or inaccurate. This appears to be a case where the university press release did a pretty good job of remaining true to the paper. It sounds like you are uncomfortable with the conclusion, rather than the summary of that conclusion.