>but we do know it will cross a line two thirds of the way down the block sometime before the human reaches the end of the block.
I'm trying to be careful here because I don't want to come across as if I'm against investing efforts to mitigate climate change. But in the real world, it ultimately comes down to trade-offs. So I agree with the premise that eventually, if unabated, climate change will likely cause "bad" outcomes. Apropos to this thread, though, is the definition of "bad". And from what other commenters have shared, there is large uncertainty of both the "low" and "high" temperature change models out to about 2070 or so.
In other words, even if the circumstances meet the definition for a "high" temperature change it may result in the same outcome as if it were a "low" temperature change, but the mitigation efforts would likely be drastically different. In a world where the solution is trade-offs, mitigating for one scenario over the other comes with real consequences. The point I'm trying to get at here is that I think uncertainty has to be a larger part of the conversation when we're talking about competing risks, especially when that uncertainty is relatively high. While uncertainty is a central part of a scientific discussion, my hesitancy about even bringing this up is that I also recognize that highlighting uncertainty is also a tactic of bad-faith actors to undermine any reasonable conclusions.
I'm trying to be careful here because I don't want to come across as if I'm against investing efforts to mitigate climate change. But in the real world, it ultimately comes down to trade-offs. So I agree with the premise that eventually, if unabated, climate change will likely cause "bad" outcomes. Apropos to this thread, though, is the definition of "bad". And from what other commenters have shared, there is large uncertainty of both the "low" and "high" temperature change models out to about 2070 or so.
In other words, even if the circumstances meet the definition for a "high" temperature change it may result in the same outcome as if it were a "low" temperature change, but the mitigation efforts would likely be drastically different. In a world where the solution is trade-offs, mitigating for one scenario over the other comes with real consequences. The point I'm trying to get at here is that I think uncertainty has to be a larger part of the conversation when we're talking about competing risks, especially when that uncertainty is relatively high. While uncertainty is a central part of a scientific discussion, my hesitancy about even bringing this up is that I also recognize that highlighting uncertainty is also a tactic of bad-faith actors to undermine any reasonable conclusions.