Science journalists face a dilemma: accurately representing scientific uncertainty can be exploited by those seeking to discredit inconvenient findings. Climate scientists acknowledge uncertainties in specific predictions while maintaining high confidence in overall warming. However, press coverage of 'uncertainty' gets weaponized by denialists as if uncertainty means no conclusions are possible. Some scientists now argue for communicating confidence levels more clearly rather than avoiding uncertainty altogether.
It can be inferred from the text that
scientific findings never involve any uncertainty
how scientific information is communicated may affect how it is received and used
climate scientists have no confidence in any of their predictions
journalists should never report on scientific uncertainty
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the best answer. Communication approach affects public understanding and weaponization.
- Context clues: Same uncertainty is understood differently based on how it's communicated; some seek better communication.
- Meaning: The form of communication, not just content, shapes reception.
- Verify: The dilemma exists because communication choices have consequences.
💡 Strategy: When different communication approaches produce different outcomes, infer that framing matters.
Choice A is incorrect because scientists "acknowledge uncertainties." Choice C is incorrect because they maintain "high confidence in overall warming." Choice D is incorrect because better communication of "confidence levels" is proposed, not avoidance.