Emily Cunningham

Which is why, at this point, unfortunately, our likeliest outcomes are actually quite catastrophic, and catastrophic outcomes actually quite likely. (x/x)

David, I agree with just about everything you wrote in this thread (even retweeting 3 of your points). But I take major issue and strongly disagree with your framing of "likeliest outcomes." @AlexSteffen has a pointed thread on this:

I agree it’s a bit foolish to make particular predictions—so much about human response is uncertain. By “likely outcomes” I just mean the range of scenarios that lie between 2C (which I take to be roughly best-case) and 4C (where our current path takes us by 2100).

I agree that the consensus on 'currently likely' outcomes is something like 2.0º-4ºC. My point is that pundits often use past trendlines as evidence to predict we won't act, when we're in a discontinuity in which history is a poor guide, and climate politics is in wild flux.

I just think it is extremely difficult to determine anything like accurate probabilities of climate futures—because it involves trying to unpack incredibly complicated, fast-changing systems, hindered by outdated legacy understandings of how the world works...

It is IMPOSSIBLE to calculate accurate probabilities of climate futures. Humans have the ability to choose, and it is wrong to treat such systems the same way as physical systems (where the idea of probabilities of different outcomes has meaning).

We can only make conditional statements like "if we continue on this current emissions path, here is the probability distribution of likely warming that will result". Much confusion has resulted from people trying to treat human systems like physical systems. They need to stop.