Yep, as someone else said, I'm quoting a different part of the article.
Though: from experience in science, when someone says "less than 0.4" in this kind of context, you can expect they mean ">= 0.3". And if you want to be careful and rigorous about it, you can check the 2021 Nature research article being cited here, and verify this. This article puts the contribution of Antarctica to SLR by 2100 between [0.3, 1] under that emissions scenario.
Which, again, is not "we have no idea". We're not seriously concerned about Antarctica picking up a significant amount of ice mass, nor are we seriously concerned about 10+m of SLR by 2100. Both of these would be significant if they were actual possibilities, so: when you say "we have no idea", you are not fairly representing the actual uncertainty that we have. We have some idea, just not as much as we'd like.
....as a side note, the jump from "hey, this guy isn't quoting the same thing as me" to "wow he's trying to propagandize us" is not a healthy jump.
Assuming that someone's arguing in bad faith, rather than, say, quoting a different part of the article, is probably a key piece in the vaguely anti-science mindset that you have. It's gonna color every article you read, every discussion you have, and lead you to incorrect conclusions time and again. But I don't expect this argument to have any traction, either: the emotional responses that feed into villainization tend to be pretty deeply-wired and resistant to logic.
Though: from experience in science, when someone says "less than 0.4" in this kind of context, you can expect they mean ">= 0.3". And if you want to be careful and rigorous about it, you can check the 2021 Nature research article being cited here, and verify this. This article puts the contribution of Antarctica to SLR by 2100 between [0.3, 1] under that emissions scenario.
Which, again, is not "we have no idea". We're not seriously concerned about Antarctica picking up a significant amount of ice mass, nor are we seriously concerned about 10+m of SLR by 2100. Both of these would be significant if they were actual possibilities, so: when you say "we have no idea", you are not fairly representing the actual uncertainty that we have. We have some idea, just not as much as we'd like.
....as a side note, the jump from "hey, this guy isn't quoting the same thing as me" to "wow he's trying to propagandize us" is not a healthy jump.
Assuming that someone's arguing in bad faith, rather than, say, quoting a different part of the article, is probably a key piece in the vaguely anti-science mindset that you have. It's gonna color every article you read, every discussion you have, and lead you to incorrect conclusions time and again. But I don't expect this argument to have any traction, either: the emotional responses that feed into villainization tend to be pretty deeply-wired and resistant to logic.