While science does tend to keep estimates and language neutral to focus on hard facts, I would argue that those facts have pointed to catastrophe for a long tim

While science does tend to keep estimates and language neutral to focus on hard facts, I would argue that those facts have pointed to catastrophe for a long time [1]. The language of fact is often dry and what most people (myself included) naturally pay attention to are loud/charismatic/flashy presentations of topics. Visualization [2] of data helps understand just how much area we can expect to lose around the coasts. These kinds of datasets are available and scientists do their best to publish them but what the public ultimately gets are articles filtered through journalists who often "translate" what they hear. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/26/world/scientists-urge-rapid-action-on-global-warming.html https://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/26/world/scientists-urge-rap... [2] https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/#/layer/slr/10/-13585575.604734166/4504014.1542522935/12/satellite/none/0.8/2050/interHigh/midAccretion https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/#/layer/slr/10/-13585575.60473416...