[pacifist]

> As an aside, I really dislike the increasing use of "tipping points"

Tipping points have been part of the conversation all along. They are a reality we have to deal with. Sounds to me like you need to come to terms with that reality: that we have a huge problem barreling towards us and we need to respond urgently, immediately and dramatically.

[throwawaysea]

Your final sentence seems like an alarmist take to me, although since it isn’t specific in its suggestions, I cannot really say. I feel we need to respond but not to extremes. For example I don’t think banning gas cars or banning gas stoves or moving away from capitalism, all of which have been variously suggested, are necessary. However I feel subsidizing wind, solar, and nuclear energy and instituting carbon trade structures connected to net carbon reductions (like direct capture) would make sense.

As for tipping points - scientific matters require evidence and precision, not hyperbole that has come to occupy our news and social media. This paper uses the phrase “tipping points” in highlights and introductory blurbs but doesn’t actually provide proof for those tipping points. It feels like a sensationalized headline to me if the model cannot actually prove irreversibility, which is what the phrase “tipping point” implies. That’s not to say we can’t speculate about that possibility, but if we are to speculate, we should make it clear that this is what we’re doing - not wrap speculation with a scientific paper.