anthropogenic interference with the climate, which is what the ipcc was originally charged w wh as their missionon, arguably you should not downplalay the higher-end scenarios if they're credible, even if f they're loww probabilityty outcomes. if ththr probability i isn't zero, then they should contribute to t the assessment of risk much in the way t that, you know, we buy fie insurance for our homes nott becauause we think our homes are going to bururn down. that's a very rare occurrence. it's very unlikely to happen to o us, but even thohough its probability is very l low, the magnitude of co, the impact on our lives if our house was to o burn down is immeasurable. mitigating climate change, , doing somemething abot our carbonon essioions ia plananetary insurance policy, ,d in guiding the teterms of that insurance policy,y, we need t te focucusing on some of those potentialal more extreme catastrorophic outcocomes. if te ipcc systematically downplays those e outcomes, then it dodo't serve ththat largeger process of societal risk assessment as it should. qualitatively speaking, if you look at imp