[chrisseaton]

> Couldn’t any form of bad news make people panic, sleep deprived, and stressed?

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.

[take_a_breath]

I haven't seen nearly enough action taken, so maybe sounding the alarm louder will push more action?

==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?

[chrisseaton]

> And what might that "effective action" entail?

Well exactly.

We need to figure this out before we deliberately induce mass panic, which would only be destructive without any idea of what action you want to achieve.