Actually climate models are doing pretty well. As was predicted by the models decades ago glaciers have retreated, sea ice declined, sea level increased, diurnal temperature ranges have decreased, increased periods of droughts, more intense rainfall, heat records being broken, altered ocean currents etc etc

All were forecast and all have now been observed. Most people saying climate science isn’t robust are motivated by political views.

Climate models don't have a great track record at making predictions? [needs citation]

And thus, we keep discussion about a few percent here or there instead of accepting that we never can be accurate in our predictions but should be looking at the overall trend. Ofcourse, we are in a bad way, the overall signs are clear. What do you do when you are driving a car.and.you see a child playing with a ball? You slow down and anticipate the worst, that the kid suddenly will cross the street. So, why do we.continue full blast with our emissions? Let's sort out the 25 issue later, just accept that it is bad and reduce. But.... We are building coal fired powerplants like crazy, we burn more wood, we keep flying long distance to our holidays and do not seem to be willing to take a serious step back... No, let's discuss about the percentages. And then what? Just continue because maybe it is 24.8? Get real, accept that we will never know exactly how it works and just like the weather predictions: live with the uncertainty but anticipate the worst.

I’m asking with regards to the application/assessment of carbon credits, which regulators will decide based on (a degree of) consensus about which multiplier is appropriate. The two numbers used most commonly are 25 and 84, and I am trying to gain an understanding of which is most likely to stand up to scrutiny/be most accepted in calculation.

[removed]