4 ms·
I think the reason is to imply the sense of urgency that does exist - whether the 7000 year old glaciers melt in one decade or two, that's still a warning that
by Johnny555 7y ago
I think the reason is to imply the sense of urgency that does exist - whether the 7000 year old glaciers melt in one decade or two, that's still a warning that the climate is warming.
- awb 7y agoRight but OC's comment still stands: state the uncertainty rather than project certainty. "Glaciers are projected to disappear between 2020 and 2030 based on current emission trends" would still be alarming.
- bavell 7y agoExactly, you don't need to twist the facts to maintain the degree of urgency. Just needs the right framing. "This glacier likely won't survive long enough for your kids/grandkids to see themselves"
- beerandt 7y agoWell if we're going to still claim it's science, there needs to be a measurable range stated. Being over ambiguous just to be right can be just as misleading as overstating certainty. (Think Nostradamus type claims.)