I think to non-scientists, or at least people who don't work with log scales, the use of linear scales makes the graph easier to understand. While I wouldn't expect to see this in Nature, this article reads like it is intended for a general audience.
Easier to misunderstand, yes. If the motivation is to simplify, they should plot 2 graphs, with a second graph being log plot or a zoom on the low scale part to show its not linear
A linear scale for that graph is completely appropriate: it’s showing how one data series has flattened out and the other continues to grow at an increasing rate. I would also argue that since one of those data series is clearly not exponential (it’s more of a sideways S-shape) it would be harder to interpret what that series actually looked like on a log scale.
If you choose to plot things on a logarithmic scale, you open a whole can of worms with expecting your target audience to be educated numerically and understand the implications of a line on a log-scale (which looks far less dire than an exponential on a linear scale).
Because you need to get the attention of (1) the man in the street, and (2) politicians. And if the politicians aren't taking notice, they will get a quick wake-up call from their electorate.
Australian news outlet uses a log plot. It certainly has a benefit, as you can clearly compare different countries. Is your growth rate more like Italy's, or more like Japan's? We, in Australia, certainly need to do better.
If you understand exponentials log plots are the way to go. But most people need a lesson in what they mean before nature gives them a catastrophic one.
