The headline accurately reflects the content of the article, which is a hysterical mishmash of speculation that does a massive disservice to the science. We "ma

The headline accurately reflects the content of the article, which is a hysterical mishmash of speculation that does a massive disservice to the science. We "may" have learned about something that "could" happen "if" something else turns out to be true. Antarctic melting is a particularly nasty consequence of anthopogenic climate change. It's a fairly robust first-order prediction of almost any analysis that gets anthropogenic heat balances correct--so unlike almost all other detailed predictions, there is a good chance of it happening--and the consequences, apart from maybe submerging Florida, are unequivocally bad for humans. But in a debate as emotionally charged as the one over climate change and what to do about it, the last thing we need is the Washington Post ranting on in purely speculative terms. If a friend told you, "Ten years from now, you may remember 2014 as the year that you first learned that I may have gotten a new job. Meanwhile, 2015 could be the year of the double whammy — when you learned the same about our buddy Joe, which could set in motion a road trip," you would probably look at them funny and say, "Hey, why are you telling me all this stuff that may or may nor or could or could not or might or might not happen as if it's the most important thing in the world? It sounds kind of pretentious and stupid."