One narrow interpretation is that one particular study that you did not cite got it wrong.
One broad interpretation is that we should not pay attention or give credence to the good faith estimates offered at the time.
I get tired of snarky one-liners that don't say what they mean. They do not promote useful discussion. My comment here would not be necessary if you took a few minutes to elaborate about what you meant.
Lastly: Estimates change. No model is perfect but some are useful.
I was born in the 70s, and my entire life I've been hearing climate alarmism - the end of the world is nigh (or just around the corner). No, really, this time it's for real! Donate here to stop it.
Most of the "solutions" I've seen are worse than the problem. Recycling was a major con that no one wants to talk about.
Carbon offset credits? Really?
With the amount of alarmism and blatant opportunism in the space, it's pretty hard to sift through and focus on real, meaningful change. Like not wasting precious aquifer water on lawns.
Simple stuff that would have real impact. Taxing the hell out of single use plastic water bottles.
We've done it before. The anti CFC thing was a huge success. Seems like that should be a model to follow.
Instead of pearl-clutching global alarmism, we should narrowly focus on concrete problems with real, measurable solutions, and address them one by one.
IPCC, see summary of Q3.9 on p9 https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar3/syr/
