[rdl]

Humans unquestionably respond to "stories", especially those with personal impact, more than just statistics. But statistics and fair/scientific data analysis are the correct form of analysis.

Maybe the right thing is some process to analyze the data fairly and then pick verifiably representative instances for deep-dive stories about the change.

(I'm pretty sold on climate change, and increasingly so on CO2/human activity as a major factor, and likely large impact, but I think the costs of brutal CO2 reduction are probably far higher than the costs of alternative remediations. Including costs on other environmental issues -- as diesel fuel in cities vs. gasoline has shown, with one having lower carbon emissions due to efficiency, but the other being cleaner in other emissions...)