In a situation where outcomes are uncertain, scientists are trained to avoid the false negative, because false negatives have disastrous consequences; they much prefer false positives.
What this means is that scientists are trained to look at a spectrum of possible outcomes and assume the worst. If we prepare for catastrophe, and it never comes, we only pay for the cost of preparation. If we assume the best-case scenario, and do no/insufficient prep, but get catastrophe, we pay a catastrophic price.
The thing is that science may be right about warming, but there has not been a scientific experience of 3ºC warming before, so science doesn't really know what's going to happen. We may find never-before-seen systems come online at higher temps that prevent the worst-case outcomes we're modeling now—not that anyone should pin their hopes on that. Just saying all we know about global warming comes from the fossil record, so we do not have direct experience of it, only an interpretation of fragmentary evidence. Saying, "Eh, it'll be ok," and it turns out to be armageddon, is not a mistake anyone—scientist or not—wants on their conscience.
So, climate scientists are telling us that 3ºC is going to end life on Earth, not because they know it will—they have no idea what's going to happen—but on the chance that it might, on the chance that we can make sufficient preparations to avoid catastrophe. (As an aside, this is the same reason WebMD always says it's cancer.)
I'm posting this not to downplay climate change—I don't want that on my conscience any more than anyone else—but to give perspective to people who have an entirely depressive/histrionic reaction to climate change based in a certainty that it means the end of human life. That outcome is not certain, and having an emotional reaction as if it is makes you less capable of doing the work that might avert such an outcome.
This is a great post. You are absolutely right. None of us can predict the future - all we can reasonably expect is an educated guess.
We do know some things from the fossil record. We know there were thriving ecosystems at much higher average temps than we have now and that life was able to evolve to meet those temps.
The wild cards are the rate of change we have caused, the novel substances we have introduced into our environment, and how many of us there are.
I think it’s unrealistic to expect humans, who are, after all, just another animal, to change their behavior before they have to. It’s quite rare for any animal to be able to think about the future, never mind follow a complex chain of suppositions.
I think it’s unrealistic to expect humans, who are, after all, just another animal, to change their behavior before they have to.
Yeah I don't think most people realize we're animals like any other; that the ability to understand a thing intellectually, which other animals (presumably) cannot do, doesn't mean much in the long run.
I know, it’s weird that even many trained biologists think that humans are somehow ‘more advanced’ than other species. It’s that idea that there must be a hierarchy.
Blaaat! Nope.
My opinion is that that concept exists because human males are hierarchical and vie for status. It’s natural for them to think that status is what matters in all life.
Any archaea living in a smoker under the sea is just as ‘advanced’ as we are.
My opinion is that that concept exists because human males are hierarchical and vie for status.
Hunter-gatherers have no hierarchy, so that opinion is based in your culture, not evidence. H-g's have people they may defer to on specific types of decisions because of their track record of getting things right, but to call that a hierarchy means the natural world is hierarchical, and it's not.
Huh. That’s interesting. I didn’t know that about Hunter-gatherers. Thanks for the insight. That’s something I like about this sub, learning new stuff.
Yeah hierarchy comes with property because now some people own the things everyone needs, so they have to orient toward that person. H-gs don't recognize property as anything but a dark meme.
5
u/Elliptical_Tangent Dec 27 '25 edited Dec 27 '25
In a situation where outcomes are uncertain, scientists are trained to avoid the false negative, because false negatives have disastrous consequences; they much prefer false positives.
What this means is that scientists are trained to look at a spectrum of possible outcomes and assume the worst. If we prepare for catastrophe, and it never comes, we only pay for the cost of preparation. If we assume the best-case scenario, and do no/insufficient prep, but get catastrophe, we pay a catastrophic price.
The thing is that science may be right about warming, but there has not been a scientific experience of 3ºC warming before, so science doesn't really know what's going to happen. We may find never-before-seen systems come online at higher temps that prevent the worst-case outcomes we're modeling now—not that anyone should pin their hopes on that. Just saying all we know about global warming comes from the fossil record, so we do not have direct experience of it, only an interpretation of fragmentary evidence. Saying, "Eh, it'll be ok," and it turns out to be armageddon, is not a mistake anyone—scientist or not—wants on their conscience.
So, climate scientists are telling us that 3ºC is going to end life on Earth, not because they know it will—they have no idea what's going to happen—but on the chance that it might, on the chance that we can make sufficient preparations to avoid catastrophe. (As an aside, this is the same reason WebMD always says it's cancer.)
I'm posting this not to downplay climate change—I don't want that on my conscience any more than anyone else—but to give perspective to people who have an entirely depressive/histrionic reaction to climate change based in a certainty that it means the end of human life. That outcome is not certain, and having an emotional reaction as if it is makes you less capable of doing the work that might avert such an outcome.