> There’s something else going on, too: Scientists are shielding the public. They say: “We don’t want people to give up,” or “We don’t want the island nations to feel abandoned,” or “We don’t want people to lose hope.”
This is called out by the author, but in my opinion as soon as you start changing the truth to fit a narrative you are not being scientific. If their model says we are missing the mark and we will get warming of 4C then this is what should be reported.
What would we say if a scientist doing Alzheimer research said that their new medecine could reduce symptoms by 50% even though their data shows that the reduction is only 10%? Even if it's not for money and purely so that patients treated with the medecine would "keep hope" we would call that person a liar.
This is called out by the author, but in my opinion as soon as you start changing the truth to fit a narrative you are not being scientific. If their model says we are missing the mark and we will get warming of 4C then this is what should be reported.
What would we say if a scientist doing Alzheimer research said that their new medecine could reduce symptoms by 50% even though their data shows that the reduction is only 10%? Even if it's not for money and purely so that patients treated with the medecine would "keep hope" we would call that person a liar.