I would argue the opposite. The number one frustration I have with climate change is the continued and persistent inaction by our world leaders. I would argue that modeling out worst case scenarios is more likely to reach our leaders and finally break this decades long inaction.

I think generally the effects climate skeptics have over climate policy is overstated. And corporations with vested interest in being able to continue releasing massive amounts of CO2 into our atmosphere have much more say over climate policy then climate skeptics. Now these companies often do weaponize climate skeptics in order to lobby government into continued inaction, but that behavior will continue regardless of how scientists frame their climate models.

▲

joquarky 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Paying off debts is too politically unpopular.

We can't even balance the budget in the US.

Orchestrating climate change mitigation is likely an order of magnitude more difficult than balancing budgets.

	▲	runarberg 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That has nothing to do with science communication and whether or not scientists should avoid sounding too alarmist when publishing their models for the purpose of getting their desired climate policy enacted by governments.