Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Cubusphere t1_j6mu487 wrote

It's always "sooner than expected" because scientists are incentivised to publish best-case scenarios. I wonder why...

−5

fungussa OP t1_j6mun0n wrote

Go on, tell us more about your conspiracy theory.

2

Cubusphere t1_j6muzy8 wrote

Hopium, less funds for undesired results, missing big picture and trying to condense complex systems too far.

It's a well known pattern, no conspiracy.

3

fungussa OP t1_j6mvilz wrote

Are you saying that climate scientists are are underplaying the severity of climate risks?

1

Cubusphere t1_j6mwefg wrote

Often, yes. When your findings are so gloomy that "we might as well give up" becomes an expected response, you're going to do best-case followed by "this is how we can still turn this around". The last part is swiftly ignored, rinse and repeat.

2

fungussa OP t1_j6mxli8 wrote

That doesn't make sense, as the article is about research showing that threshold may be crossed earlier. It's doing the opposite of downplaying risks.

−1

Cubusphere t1_j6mxw3d wrote

Yes, I was pointing out why often things seem to happen/are predicted "earlier than expected", because they were forecast best-case before. Sorry, I was not clear about that at all, I see now.

5