I was merely claiming that we have an incomplete understanding of the climate system, and because of that we shouldn't make these types of claims and state them with absolute certainty like the article is doing.
Surely we can agree there?
Surely we can agree there?
I'm afraid I can't agree with you here because if your claim is that 'we don't know fully how climate works, then things might not be as bad as we think', the opposite claim is also true. That is, 'we don't know fully how climate works, therefore things might be worse than we think'.
It's entirely possible that there are other mechanisms or feedback loops we don't know about which when triggered could cause a massive cascading effect making the global temperature rise rapidly.
I concede that it's impossible to disprove my assertion, but it might still be true: we just don't know. I'm arguing that we should embrace the uncertainty and accept that we can't know certain things.
These sorts of articles can cause immense stress in people and are therefore doing harm.
The uncertainties involved are fundamentally unquantifiable. We think we can know, but we make only educated guesses. We should keep doing that, but communication about the results should be honest. A title that states "one billion people will suffer" isn't that.