Good reporting is becoming a bit rare these days, glad to see the Atlantic being precise. It's still a worrisome report but it is important to not misstate what that 60% figure really means.

"The dichotomy between precision and impact is a false one." I love that sentence.

I hear time and time again strong disagreements on climate change, that simply boil down to a lack of precision on both sides. I also hear people called climate change deniers when they try add precision. It really doesn't help get people on board to solve the issue. We don't need propaganda to get people to take this seriously we need to build trust instead.

Tl; dr:

1. Distinguishes 60% reduction in living animals from 60% average reduction per-species. Then cherry-picks a hypothetical where the latter is less severe than the former (though it could be greater too).

2. Accepts that humanity has caused a huge loss in life, but mildly distracts by looking at "since prehistory" rather than the much more severe changes since 1970.

3. Concedes the distinction in point 1 is nitpicking, seemingly negating the point of the article.

4. Justifies itself with the explanation that without technical accuracy such claims are easy to mistakenly lump in with conspiracy-theories and ignored.

Yes, and all the other species of humans too.