Humanity's situation with respect to climate change is sometimes likened to that of a frog in a slow-boiling pot of water. But are we telling the frog what he needs to know? Most climate science is communicated to governments in the form of predictions of what is most likely to happen. I argue it should instead answer the following questions: what is the worst that could happen, and how likely will that become as time goes by? The risks and need to act will then become much clearer to see.