Even your link acknowledges there are tipping points, and that they matter, specifically noting Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. Using the IPCC as evidence f

Even your link acknowledges there are tipping points, and that they matter, specifically noting Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. Using the IPCC as evidence for their lack is contradictory as they themselves explicitly acknowledge they do not consider them as the full impact (and timescales) of their consequence is not well understood. Thus consensus is unlikely at best. Yet there are many thresholds that may have dramatic amplifying effects over lengthy periods (millennia). Lack of consideration of them has been a source of criticism of IPCC, and is why it's possibly safest to consider IPCC reports a "best case" scenario. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/09/tipping-points-could-exacerbate-climate-crisis-scientists-fear https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/09/tipping-... What matters is they would increasingly lock the world onto a track of rising temperatures. It matters little if the impact turns out to be serious such as melting permafrost or East Antarctic ice sheet, or less globally serious and localised such as a closedown of the North Atlantic Conveyor. How many degrees of increased warming or changed climate is far less well understood.