Post

Leon Simons
@leonsimons.com

And I can't state this enough: Our estimates of high climate sensitivity are based on the best estimates of available observations. There is a high probability (from a risk perspective) that climate sensitivity is even higher than our seemingly 'higher' (than e.g. IPCC's +3°C for 2xCO₂) estimates.

Climate News@climatenews.bsky.social

Exactly the same logic applies to climate sensitivity. We need to work on the assumption that Dr James Hansen et al is correct with their higher climate sensitivity models because we won’t know if mainstream climate science is completely wrong about low climate sensitivity until it is too late.

Leon Simons
@leonsimons.com

Uncertainty is rarely our friend, with relation to climate change. And in science 'conservative' means the opposite of what it means to risk mitigation professionals.

7 reposts39 likes

Donald McCarthy
@void-d00m.bsky.social

They dress up scientific reticence as principled caution when really it is nothing but cowardice and selfish economic interests. Understandable, but an abnegation of a greater responsibility to truth, to science, and to humanity.

Climate News
@climatenews.bsky.social

Exactly. In insurance modelling “conservative” assumptions mean “assuming more bad things happen”. In climate modelling “conservative” assumptions mean “assuming fewer bad things happen”. Insurance modellers know about this. Yet don’t act.

Leon Simons
@leonsimons.com

Climate modelers are hesitant to present results that might turn out to be 'not as bad'. This is worsened by climate deniers and 'useful idiots' pushing strawman arguments about scenarios.

Climate News
@climatenews.bsky.social

And it is worsened further by climate scientists without any conscience and any sense of morality. “oh but my ego, let me rather say it isn’t as bad and if a billion die, at least my moral compass is so fucked I preferred to think about my ego instead”