My impression is we do not stress these risks (clearly) enough, so we may be «erring on
the side of least drama» (ESLD).
They call this tendency «erring on
the side of least drama,» or E.S.L.D. for short.
Brysse et al. concludes that the on the whole the IPCC has been too conservative in its projections, «erring on
the side of least drama» — in effect preferring to be wrong on the conservative side in order to avoid criticism.
Brysse et al. (2012) suggests that the IPCC and climate scientists in general tend to be too conservative in their predictions because they are «erring on
the side of least drama» (ESLD).
We suggest that this underestimation reflects a systematic bias, which we label «erring on
the side of least drama (ESLD)».
Climate change prediction: Erring on
the side of least drama?
It is my view that by erring on
the side of least drama, scientists are cowing under the fear of attacks from sceptics (which we have to recognise will come no matter what we say) and are failing to give policy makers an accurate picture of low probability but high hazard events.