Is it unethical to communicate science without any emotional weight?

I'm not sure who better to ask than this sub. I'm a science writer for my university's student paper, and I generally try to maintain a more objective and neutral stance on my articles. I don't usually make any bold claims or emotional appeals.<br><br>However, I've been asked to do some research on climate change for my university. This topic is extremely controversial, and I could likely get a lot of reads with some sensationalist titles. But I don't exactly want to do that, because I think there's a danger in making these appeals when discussing science. If I begin by saying "climate change is going to kill all of humanity" only to conclude a few paragraphs later that the situation isn't so bad, I think that's unethical. I'm manipulating my readers.<br><br>I'm not sure if a lack of emotional appeals is unethical, but I know that it means that I have very few readers on some of my articles. I'm not sure if I'm doing science any good by just writing objectively about it. I think there's a growing sentiment that scientists are out of touch with the public. Would my lack of sensationalism help feed that stigma? On the other hand, I've heard some arguments that sensationalist media is helping create some of the stigma around vaccines and COVID, so I'm not sure if sensationalism is the right way to go.<br><br>Any thoughts?<br><br>Edit: I want to make clear that I'm not being too critical of scientists and science journalism that uses sensationalism to make their claims. I understand that the situation is dire, and if sensationalism is what gets people reading, then it's worth it. I'm just asking if there's any value in objective science journalism, when so many other outlets are sensationalist.