Having done some modeling myself, I am always stupefied and rankled when I read and hear the certitude with which people, mostly in the media, make claims about future climate scenarios. I am not at all surprised by Burgess' results. This is an extremely complex system being modeled, with the inputs to the model also being modeled...
Also, is it just me or does this article bend over backwards to avoid the simple, obvious lede?: climate change scenario estimates are too high and it's even possible CO2 emissions are in decline.
It’s the right move rhetorically- the issue is too emotional and tied up with identity, at least in the US. This article delivers a message that could be treated as supporting climate denialism in a package that lets people on both of the issue read it without emotional triggers.
I’d love to have seen my take away though- current and past investments in regulation and technology have had an effect on carbon emissions. Future investments in regulation changes and technology may reduce it more. The flattening of the emissions curve didn’t just happen by itself.
Also, is it just me or does this article bend over backwards to avoid the simple, obvious lede?: climate change scenario estimates are too high and it's even possible CO2 emissions are in decline.