Humanity’s situation with climate change is sometimes compared to that of a frog in a slowly boiling pot of water. Most of our climate science takes the form of prediction: telling the frog that in five minutes’ time he will be a little bit warmer. We need more risk assessment: telling the frog that the worst that could happen is he could boil to death, and that this is becoming increasingly likely over time. This approach can give a much clearer picture of the risks of climate change to human health, food security, and coastal cities.

Most research into the impacts of climate change concentrates on what would happen at low degrees of change. We know a great deal about best-case scenarios. Thanks to wilful ignorance among policymakers, and the cultural preferences of scientists, worst-case scenarios are much less considered. We know the least about what matters most.

Most research into the impacts of climate change concentrates on what would happen at low degrees of change. We know a great deal about best-case scenarios. Thanks to wilful ignorance among policymakers, and the cultural preferences of scientists, worst-case scenarios are much less considered. We know the least about what matters most.

Humanity’s situation with climate change is sometimes compared to that of a frog in a slowly boiling pot of water. Most of our climate science takes the form of prediction: telling the frog that in five minutes’ time he will be a little bit warmer. We need more risk assessment: telling the frog that the worst that could happen is he could boil to death, and that this is becoming increasingly likely over time. This approach can give a much clearer picture of the risks of climate change to human health, food security, and coastal cities.