Mann's correction is not very helpful to Franzen's political agenda which is to motivate people by inducing fear. Mann states (on Twitter) > Even after Franzen

Mann's correction is not very helpful to Franzen's political agenda which is to motivate people by inducing fear. Mann states (on Twitter) > Even after Franzen was informed of his error by the fact-checker, he still ended up skewing the notion of uncertainty, implying the model averages preferentially underestimate likely warming, when I had clearly indicated there's an equal likelihood of under and over-estimation. [0] which suggests Franzen took the side of the "equal likelihood" and skewed it in the direction he preferred. What Mann wants is an accurate scientific representation of the model's accuracy whereas Franzen wants to emphasize the potentially disastrous consequences of a model that underestimates the severity of warming. Mann is scientifically correct but Franzen is after something more crucial which is convincing people to act. Kate Marvel seems to read Franzen's article as fatalist (or at least encouraging readers to adopt a fatalist position). I personally read Franzen as trying to motivate people to act in the face of imminent and unavoidable danger and, in my opinion, I think Franzen's approach is more likely to produce action than Marvel's. [0] https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1170848372569325570 https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1170848372569325570