ATTP, I thought about your statement here : “Climate scientists are studying our climate; past, present, future and presenting possible outcomes that depend on what pathways we might follow in the future.”
The first part seems accurate to me as I looked up Climate Science so to speak. This definition is from wiki: “Climatology (from Greek κλίμα, klima, “place, zone”; and -λογία, -logia) or climate science is the study of climate, scientifically defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of time.[1] This modern field of study is regarded as a branch of the atmospheric sciences and a subfield of physical geography, which is one of the Earth sciences. Climatology now includes aspects of oceanography and biogeochemistry. Basic knowledge of climate can be used within shorter term weather forecasting using analog techniques such as the El Niño – Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the Madden-Julian Oscillation (MJO), the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), the Northern Annualar Mode (NAM) which is also known as the Arctic oscillation (AO), the Northern Pacific (NP) Index, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO). Climate models are used for a variety of purposes from study of the dynamics of the weather and climate system to projections of future climate.”
The second part “presenting possible outcomes that depend on what pathways we might follow” made me wonder. Now that is plural and I take it to mean you are talking about the models. A simplistic view of this would be that specifically CO2 is suppose to warm the atmosphere in a quantitative measure and depending on how much we have already released and will continue to release into the atmosphere we will have a net (or gross) rise in temperature. To me that differs significantly from wiki that says: “Climate models are used for a variety of purposes from study of the dynamics of the weather and climate system to projections of future climate.” Of course I’m pointing to “outcomes that depend on what pathways we follow” in your definition vs what they say is the definition. Now I could say Oh you naughty boy that’s advocacy and just point out you shouldn’t say that anymore, but we all know that is very true especially as I pointed out in my simplistic view the models are about CO2 and warming. We don’t see, for example, models projected way into the future showing how much CO2 might be needed (or some other measure) to prevent an ice age due to Milankovitch cycles. To be fair you could argue that “outcomes that depend on what pathways we follow” is simply projections but I think that is the crux of what Editor is pointing out. I agree with your rebuke of him about quoting, however He says; “Climate scientists have bet big on a catastrophic outcome arriving soon.” It seems to me you are talking about the same thing he looks at it as a big bet you look at as pathway projections. If the models prove to be wrong then the hypothesis is ready for the dustbin or needs readjusting and that is the bet. Their ‘bet’ or ‘pathway’ could be either right or wrong. How is bet and pathway different?