“Interesting, I was looking at the chart provided, but now I see it was from 2017”
It strikes me that it happened to be a 2017 chart from which you took your cue was the least source of your comprehension problem.
I suspect the problem arose from the fact that the graph represents a totally incomplete data set, containing only 17 countries.
That someone can look at that chart and draw the sort of conclusion you did is quite bemusing.
Did it not occur to you that there might be a few names missing from that graphic?
“Do you think the improvements you cite in Australia and other developed countries are likely to save the planet from a sea level rise of at least 1m this century?“
You’re quizzing someone about the making of definitive predictions in relation to certain parameters of open, non-linear, multi-variate, complex, chaotic, physical and chemical macro systems, over a forecast period spanning several decades?
Are you for real?
Anyone remotely conversant with statistics, actuarial practice or scientific methodology will know that any such predictions - no matter how well-intentioned and impartial they are - will not be worth a bucket of warm spit due to the compounding effect of even the smallest of forecast errors.
(Certainly, the professional and technical credibility of anyone who does deign to make forecasts of that long-dated nature should be called into question, because any self-respecting scientific practitioner will realise the folly of doing so.)
