Maybe it’s because climate scientists have been underestimating effects for decades so they didn’t lose grants for looking alarmist.
Have they?
“In this case, their very specific prediction was that warming of between 1.5°C and 4.5°C would accompany a doubling of atmospheric CO₂” https://theconversation.com/40-years-ago-scientists-predicted-climate-change-and-hey-they-were-right-120502
Isn’t the problem more that people have been reading that and assuming that it means 3°, not ‘possibly 4.5°’ ?
That said, the study there seems to assume that the effects are roughly linear, ie. that there are no tipping points.
I don’t want to go into specific predictions because there are too many. But generally, scientists are very conservative with their predictions, because they don’t want to lose grants. It’s safe to hide behind numbers and give low estimates.
I hear what you’re saying, but I think the real problem is the policy makers, who are without doubt choosing to use the least scary predictions, and pushing even those targets back when they fail to achieve them.
That’s the thing - if science is projecting something for the future nothing is 100% certain - so they have to widen the range in order to have a statement with a lower number that’s “90% certain” even if there’s a very high chance that it’s going to be way worse
Absolutely, but if you ask climate scientists, in private, what they think the numbers are saying, they will tell you a very different story.
I would guess we’ve been fucked for at least a couple of decades by now. In their need to “reach a consensus” we have been sold an unrealistic narrative of hope lol
Yes, well phrased. All though I think there was hope. There is always hope, but none of the deciders care or have cared.
