Yes... and that's unavoidable but the person I'm replying to is talking about deliberately inducing more panic, sleep deprivation and stress by increasing the dramatics of bad news. That seems bonkers to me.
> I don’t think communicating the science or real world impacts is too hard for people to handle.
I don't think giving dangerous heatwaves whimsical names is any kind of honest 'science communication.'
> We told citizens about Pearl Harbor and 9/11 attacks and it caused panic, sleep depravation, and stress. Why is this risk different?
I think you've imagined that I wrote 'don't tell people about the risks'. I wrote don't artificially ham it up to deliberately cause additional stress.
What you want is people taking effective action. Panic, sleep deprivation, and stress isn't the way to get there.
==I don't think giving dangerous heatwaves whimsical names is any kind of honest 'science communication.'==
We do it all the time for other weather events, specifically for communication purposes. I'm not sure people think of hurricane names as "whimsical" rather a way to understand specific details about a specific weather event.
==What you want is people taking effective action.==
And what might that "effective action" entail?
I remember someone used to call Sweden an "top innovative country" and when I took a closer look, he based that argument on amount of new business creation (weighted with population)
Taking a closer look, it was evident that they didn't sort the business by size, or how long they stayed, revenue or amount of employer. And as a person who lived there I know a lot of people start businesses just to circumvent the high tax rate, very restrictive hiring laws/taxes, and essentially do consulting (freelance) job. This is a symptom of how the society was made: hiring and income are heavily taxed, but not the same can be said for businesses. The claim that the country was innovative based on number of business creation quickly fell apart.
Same is true in the US. We just changed to tax code to make it even more beneficial to be a business over a salaried-employee. Did you apply the same skepticism for the US numbers?