Here Are the Guidelines for Challenging Our Climate Change Analysis and Predictions

Last Updated 12.18.23


For over a decade, we have publically called out and challenged:

a. other climate change scientists, researchers, or analysts, 

b. other think tanks and national intelligence or Darpa analysts, or Google, Intel, Microsoft, Apple, IBM, or Meta staff...

to use their far greater resources to prove any of these ten critical facts about the current climate change condition are wrong. As of this date, no one has ever demonstrated that any of the following ten climate change facts are inaccurate. 

On this page, the following sections may be helpful to you for any submitted challenge:

1. Brief description of our non-profit climate change think tank.
2. How Our Climate Change Research Review and Analysis Processes are Conducted.
3. Information about the validity and reliability of our climate science and analysis.
4. Our climate change research history.

Our Challenge Introduction

We want to hear about it if you have a legitimate, sincere, and credible criticism and challenge to our ten most current critical climate change facts. We want to understand all reasonable challenges, review their climate science-based foundation, respond to them, and, if necessary, correct any errors on our website.

However, not all published climate research is the same. The climate change and global heating summary facts and analysis found on our website are derived from the published climate research of independent, uncensored, and unbiased climate scientists and researchers without any vested fossil fuel or other financial interests in the outcomes of their research. 

Much of this website's research is from the same individuals who submit their original research to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other governments or organizations. We do not use fossil fuel industry-funded think tank research unless we have independently vetted it for problems and errors. 

When we review climate research from government organizations like NOAA, we are particularly aware of the growing censorship and politically-motivated modification or toning down of their climate scientist's research. This political censorship and politicization is particularly true in fossil fuel-producing or dependent countries. 

Numerous US government agencies have repeatedly been caught watering down or hiding critical climate change risk findings so as not to scare the public or upset their own national fossil fuel-dependent industries. We have become painfully aware that the worse climate change and global heating get, the worse the government censorship and polarization of the actual climate facts will become.

How to challenge the accuracy of anything you see on our website

Please follow these simple guidelines:

1: Be very specific about what you are challenging. Include the exact statement or statements that you can prove wrong.

Being specific about some fact on our website you doubt or disagree with does not consist of generalized or vague statements or opinions like; "this is nonsense," "I do not like this fact or the way it makes me feel," or "seems extreme," "scare tactics," "not enough documentation links," "this is BS," "people will give up hope because of this" or "who are your general authorities, etc."

Instead, please tell us precisely what statement you doubt or find incorrect. We are interested in your legitimate science-grounded criticisms, not in your generalized or vague opinions without credible climate change science to back them up.

We can and will do nothing to respond to vague, generalized opinions.

Still, with your submission of the precise statement(s) you disagree with and the climate science supporting your disagreement, we can engage in a proper academic dialogue that benefits both parties and eventually the general public. Send your challenges to [email protected].

2. Provide the climate change studies upon which you base your disagreement. Point us to the page(s and paragraph(s) in these studies that prove our statement was inaccurate.

3. Fully disclose if you have received any funding from any global fossil fuel cartel-related entities or related industries.

4. Disclose if you have had training in systems theory or the new dialectical meta-systemic theory. 

5. Disclose if any calculations used in your submitted study have been derived from the notoriously politicized and grossly underestimated IPCC climate change summary reports.

6. Demonstrate or attest that within the studies which you have relied upon and submitted, none of the following other well-documented climate change errors or distortions have been hidden or incorporated into your study's materials and which you are now using as evidence to dispute our ten facts:

a. The study used the old and currently known incorrect climate sensitivity constant of the number three. Click here for research on why this is a critical correction on almost all pre-2023 climate research. (Click here for the correct climate sensitivity constant study. 

Here is our older article on the climate sensitivity problem. It also explains with many illustrations why this error is so critical to our climate future.)

b. The study you have submitted "backed in" bogus calculations for new technologies that will allegedly remove carbon from the atmosphere or otherwise stop global warming at some future date. Click here to see precisely how the IPCC and others literally "cooked the books" and grossly skewed the current IPCC global fossil fuel reduction calculations by including unproven and non-existent future "carbon-sucking unicorn" technology into their projections as "reasons" for less global fossil fuel reductions now.

c. The submitted study did not fall prey to the Perfect Day calculation error. Click here to see the Perfect Day problem common to most of today's computer climate change modeling. This perfect day error alone will significantly lower the accuracy of all consequence predictions, timetables, and fossil fuel reduction remedies. This error alone could affect calculations and forecasts by 30-60%.

To avoid the Perfect Day error, your study must include within its calculations a value or an adjusting or adjustable algorithm for all relevant climate change tipping points, feedbacks, and their developmental scenarios. Here are some relevant tipping points and feedbacks that must be valued and adjusted for in your submitted study.



Most climate change computer modeling fails to algorithmically adjust or adequately compensate for their failure to include all known climate tipping points and feedback loops in its calculations for its climate consequence predictions or targets for correct global fossil fuel reduction targets. 

The study you provided must also demonstrate some value or compensation for the effects of interconnected, interdependent, or related climate tipping points or feedbacks and some value or compensation for the impact of the cascading reactions that would then also occur between any additional inter-dependent and interacting climate tipping points and feedbacks once triggered by a tipping point of feedback action earlier in the chain.

Climate tipping points and feedbacks do not occur in a vacuum. They push and pull on other climate change tipping points and feedbacks in the overall climate system. Where relevant, your study needs to show compensation or awareness of the interconnectedness and interdependency of other climate change tipping points and feedbacks interacting in a cascading manner with the initial set of climate change tipping points and feedbacks.



D. Your submitted study, if relevant, must adequately include the critical and increasing decline in carbon sinks in its current computer modeling. The condition of our global carbon sinks is vital to our future survival. As global heating rises, the oceans, soils, and forests remove less carbon from the atmosphere. But, when they reach their internal tipping points, the oceans, soils, and forests reverse the good they were doing and start releasing the carbon they have removed and stored back into the atmosphere. 

Most studies today do not include calculations for the increasing deterioration of carbon sinks. At the same time, they promote carbon sinks as a significant remedial factor in setting global fossil fuel reduction targets. This error alone could also reduce the accuracy of their climate summary reports by 30-60% or more.

e. Many current climate studies "politically" underestimate the actual risk levels to human survival and quality of life. They also grossly underestimate the timeframes for the consequences and risks of climate change. We will review your study submission for underestimating and failing to clearly define rising climate change risk severity and timetables in terms that the public will also understand.

Most climate scientists and studies are unwilling to candidly discuss the extremely high-risk level of a cascade of crossed tipping points and feedbacks leading to escalating global climate catastrophes leading to mass extinction.



f. Almost all existing climate studies do not address Garrett's climate change dilemma, particularly in their calculations and predictions for the required amount of correct global fossil fuel reductions. If you are disputing our 2025 global fossil fuel targets and deadlines, please demonstrate how you incorporated Garret's climate change dilemma into your calculations and predictions. Please also show how you compensated for the factors in the technical notes at the end of the 2025 global fossil fuel targets page.

g. Attest you have read this public trial page about the 40-60 years of disinformation, coercive actions, and deadly crimes committed by the global fossil fuel cartel. We ask that you attest to reading this page because it is a good summary indictment of activities that have significantly harmed the ability of the public to understand current climate change facts.

Additional References

Click here to see precisely how the IPCC "cooked the fossil fuel reduction calculations" and grossly skewed the current IPCC global fossil fuel reduction calculations by including unproven, non-existent, and unscalable "carbon-sucking unicorn" technology into their projections. 

Click here to understand the long-term history of the IPCC underestimating the consequences, timeframes, and the needed global fossil fuel reduction targets by as much as 30-60% or more. This page and its linked pages will help explain why the current 2025 global fossil fuel reductions are so severe to compensate for the 40-plus years society has delayed and failed to make the required gradual fossil fuel reductions. It is also critical to understand the gross underestimation and other flaws and factors not being fully accounted for in current climate risk assessments based on the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) summary report calculations and modeling. 

Click here for a new study showing that the IPCC does not include many critical climate system factors to create its periodic summary reports in its computer climate modeling.

Click here to see the IPCC's huge atmospheric methane calculation problem.

Click here to read the ten most dangerous things almost everyone does not understand about the runaway global heating emergency. 

Click here to understand why the very painful 2025 global fossil fuel reduction targets are our honest, last-chance targets before it is too late to prevent near-total extinction. In addition, it has detailed technical notes on the many factors behind the correctly adjusted 2025 target calculations.

Click here for the four extinction-driving climate tipping points, the first being crossed starting about 2025. This page will explain precisely why we have 2-8 years left to maintain some level of effective control over their climate future before the immutable laws of climate and atmospheric greenhouse gas physics take over. 

Click here for the climate-driven processes of global collapse and mass to near-total extinction. Here, you will see the cascade of almost 80 primary and secondary climate change consequences unfolding and interacting with humanity's 11 other major global crises. After reading this page, you will understand why the extinction of half of humanity by 2050 is already an unavoidable reality

Click here to see why total human extinction from climate change is not likely.

Click here to see the eleven major runaway global heating tipping points that have been all but excluded from the IPCC calculations on how much fossil fuel use we must reduce each year globally. It also contains the tipping point theory and why crossing these climate tipping points is so dangerous to all aspects of our globalized society. 

Click here for 20 climate change consequences.

Click here for the article explaining the politicization of global fossil fuel reductions to benefit global fossil fuel interests. It will show you how the summary reports are created.

Click here for the ten most critical facts about the climate and runaway global warming. It and its links will explain runaway global warming, what near-total extinction vs. total extinction means, and why we face only near-total extinction, not total extinction. 




Showing 1 reaction

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
Get More Info Here Take Action Support Our Mission

Subscribe to Our Global Warming Blog


Subscribe to Our Global Warming Blog