I didn't say you made any promises. But I've noticed that in the context of discussions like the one around climate change, this kind of ambiguity has a high chance to poison the debate - IMO because it unnecessarily leaves room for wildly unrealistic interpretations, which then become the assumptions on which subsequent arguments build. Once there are enough opposing assumptions it becomes impossible to bridge the gap, because you can't even tell anymore
which faulty assumptions are at the root vs. which ones sprouted from those.
So I'm asking you in the hopes that your argument will be understood correctly, instead of being misleading due to distorted interpretations.