Emily Cunningham

I can’t really tell what y’all are disagreeing about. As best the experts can tell us, scenario uncertainty is at least double the physical uncertainty, and Jon is right that we have much less ability to predict the human response to this complex situation. 1/2

Hard-nosed realists would say 2C is already out of reach, but that rules out some huge step change in climate ambition. I keep recalling Mandela: it always seems impossible until it is done. 2/2

I think you’ve captured they key point. Our choices are exogenous to any assessments of likelihood. That means we need to conditional in our statements.

No one should ever just say “4C is likely”. Instead they should say “if we don’t change course, 4C is likely”. There is a world of difference between these two statements because the 2nd incorporates human choice and agency, the 1st does not.

I agree (and note, that wording is also exactly what Emily suggested?). Also I like Dave’s point re our* obsession with precision and asterices maybe being something we have to let go of, to some degree, as the conversation necessarily expands to include more people.

More broadly, we can ask: what sort of rhetoric is likeliest to move public toward the discontinuity in climate politics that is needed? Is it shaking people by lapels, as @dwallacewells believes? Or something a bit calmer, my preference? Real answer is: we don't know.