The media often lends more credence to dramatic predictions from individual climate models than does the climate science community as a whole. Models are metaphors of reality; they should be taken seriously, not literally. Predictions made by simple climate models need to be confirmed using more comprehensive climate models. Deep uncertainty surrounds estimates of climate metrics like climate sensitivity, meaning that the error bars presented with these metrics may have their own unquantifiable error bars. It is important to make the distinction between precision and accuracy when evaluating uncertainty estimates of climate parameters. Overconfidence in numerical predictions of extreme climate scenarios may lead to a “doomist” belief that a climate catastrophe is inevitable and that there is nothing we can do to prevent it.

The Aymara people use the metaphor that the future is behind us and the past is in front of us. Imagine that we are driving a car in reverse into our climate future. The past is in front of us; climate models act as the rearview mirror, showing what lies behind us in the future. The view is blurry because there is uncertainty, and the car is moving fast as we continue to emit greenhouse gases. We need to brake quickly – reduce emissions – because we know that the braking distance is very long. The Paris Agreement to reduce worldwide emissions is like a potluck dinner: Each guest decides how much food to bring. If the guests don’t bring enough food for everyone, then some will leave hungry. Similarly, emission reductions pledged in the Paris Agreement are voluntary and may be not be sufficient to strongly mitigate the warming.