>Has anyone had any luck finding a way to put perspective on it, or figure out a lie that helps keep you going? The article itself has some helpful perspective

>Has anyone had any luck finding a way to put perspective on it, or figure out a lie that helps keep you going? The article itself has some helpful perspective if you read past the headline: >The authors of the essay, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, stress their analysis is not conclusive >New feedback loops are still being discovered >Rockström says there are huge gaps in data and knowledge about how one process might amplify another >Another climate scientist – who was not involved in the paper – emphasised the document aimed to raise questions rather than prove a theory. “It’s rather selective, but not outlandish,” said Prof Martin Siegert, co-director of the Grantham Institute. “Threshold and tipping points have been discussed previously, but to state that 2C is a threshold we can’t pull back from is new, I think. I’m not sure what ‘evidence’ there is for this – or indeed whether there can be until we experience it.” >Rockström said the question needed asking. “We could end up delivering the Paris agreement and keep to 2C of warming, but then face an ugly surprise if the system starts to slip away,” he said. “We don’t say this will definitely happen. We just list all the disruptive events and come up with plausible occurrences … A very nuanced take from the guardian imo! Then again, they pull an unscientific quote for the article conclusion: >“In the context of the summer of 2018, this is definitely not a case of crying wolf, raising a false alarm: the wolves are now in sight,” said Dr Phil Williamson, a climate researcher at the University of East Anglia. Tfw there's no penalty for crying wolf...