In a candid December 2025 appearance on the program Climate Chat, climatologist James Hansen spoke plainly regarding the state of global climate communication. He described the scientific community’s current posture not merely as cautious, but as “scientific reticence on steroids”. Hansen argued that the persistent political narrative, that global warming can still be limited to 1.5°C via net-zero emissions by 2050, is “hogwash,” explicitly stating that such a figure “exposes too much” about the widening gap between official goals and physical reality. He noted greenhouse gas forcing is still increasing, making the 1.5°C target physically implausible without massive, immediate interventions that go far beyond current commitments.

This urgent warning serves as the catalyst for the deep-dive essay, Epistemic Reticence and the Structural Underestimation of Catastrophic Climate Risk. While Hansen sounds the alarm on the immediate data, the essay investigates the deep-seated structural and sociological reasons such warnings are routinely muffled. It explores the “Erring on the Side of Least Drama” (ESLD) hypothesis, which suggests scientists are culturally predisposed to downplay extreme risks to avoid accusations of alarmism. It examines how the IPCC’s requirement for consensus acts as a structural filter, often excising the “fat tails” of probability distributions, the very worst-case scenarios that Hansen warns we are ignoring.

If Hansen is right, and reticence has indeed gone too far, understanding the machinery of this silence is no longer just an academic exercise, it is a survival imperative. The essay attempts to dismantle that machinery to show exactly how and why we underestimate the risk of ruin.

Read More (Download the PDF)