How did we ever get into this climate and runaway global heating mess?

There is an old saying that "you can not reach your desired goal unless you know where you are starting from and you can see all the barriers in the way of reaching your goal."

Before moving on to exploring the runaway global heating solutions found in the free Job One Plan, it is wise to examine how we have squandered 60 years of warnings and put ourselves into this untenable runaway global warming extinction emergency. This way, we now have a better opportunity to set the correct global fossil fuel reduction targets, resolve runaway global heating, and avoid the same mistakes.

There are many reasons why we have ignored over 60 years of valid warnings about the 20 major consequences of escalating global warming. In addition to fossil fuel industry misinformation programs, a key reason is that the recognized world authority on global warming, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC,) has failed to honestly inform us as to the real risks and urgency of our crisis. (1)

Before discussing the numerous problems with the IPCC’s runaway global heating information and consequence prediction reliability, it is necessary to frame the challenge to the IPCC’s reports appropriately. In the criticisms below, we are not in any way criticizing the thousands of individual and dedicated climate scientists, many of whom, at their own expense, provide uncensored, accurate, and up-to-date runaway global heating research to the IPCC’s high-level bureaucrats.

However, those IPCC bureaucrats are the individuals who, through a highly constrained and politically manipulated administrative process, analyze, interpret, and then create the final climate summary reports and predictions. 

The IPCC's many calculation, estimation, analysis, and interpretation reliability problems and errors

In their normal 5-7 year climate update reports and predictions for politicians and policymakers, the IPCC has a repeated history of significantly underestimating how much of a problem runaway global heating could become, as well as its time frames. (3)  Before expanding upon the IPCC’s climate data underestimation problem, it also is essential to understand how they create their 5-7 year runaway global heating and prediction scenario updates for the world’s politicians and policymakers.

What surprises many individuals is that the IPCC itself does not do original global warming research. Working as unpaid volunteers, thousands of scientists from around the globe sift through the most current scientific literature on global warming and the climate. After completing this review, these unpaid scientists identify trends, write a draft report, and submit it to the IPCC.

Next, the IPCC reviews the submitted research from these scientists. This typically takes five to seven years to complete. Then, in a tediously slow and bureaucratic process, the IPCC creates comprehensive reports and assessments, including global warming prediction scenarios. Then, in the near last step, other scientists once again take the assembled draft and review and revise it as needed.

Finally, a summary for national politicians and policymakers is written. This condenses the science even further. This new and final summary report is then subjected to a line-by-line review and possible revision by non-scientist national representatives from more than 100 world governments—all of whom must approve the final summary document before it is signed and presented to the public.

Now that you understand the process for how the IPCC creates its reports, the following will not seem so surprising. A growing number of studies (referenced elsewhere) claim that across two decades and thousands of pages of IPCC climate reports, the IPCC has consistently understated the rate and intensity of runaway global heating, as well as the danger that it represents. (4)

Since the IPCC 2007 assessment, these studies have shown that the speed and ferocity at which the climate is destabilizing are at the extreme edge of, or are outpacing, IPCC projections on many fronts, including temperature rise, carbon emissions, sea-level rise, continental ice-sheet melt, Arctic sea ice decline, ocean acidification, and thawing tundra.

One glaring example of IPCC underestimation can be found in the IPCC’s previous 2007 report (5) that concluded the Arctic would not lose its summer ice before 2070 at the earliest. But the ice pack has shrunk far faster than any scenario IPCC scientists felt politicians and policymakers should consider. Just a few years after that report, a new study predicted that by 2016-2020, the Arctic's Northwest Passage would be completely ice-free during the summers. This means that in 2007, the IPCC was off by an incredible 50-54 years on a key climate prediction over an estimation prediction period of only 63 years!

Another glaring example of the dangerous IPCC underestimation problem surfaced from James Hansen, the former NASA scientist who originally warned the world about the dangers of runaway global heating nearly 40 years ago. Hansen's new study says sea levels could rise by as much as 10 feet (3 meters) by 2050. The IPCC has repeatedly and consistently predicted that sea levels should rise only 3 feet (0.9 meters) by 2100. That's a 60-70% underestimation by the IPCC occurring 50 years earlier!

Over its history, the IPCC’s global warming consequence and timetable scenario predictions are regularly underestimated by anywhere from 25 to 40%.

Why the IPCC’s runaway global heating underestimation problem is critical to you, your business, and your nation’s future

All underestimation by the IPCC is so dangerous to the future of humanity and to resolving the runaway global heating extinction emergency:

1. First, the organization is treated as the most recognized authority on global warming and is charged with advising national politicians and policymakers on the most relevant and accurate climate science so they can make the necessary laws and policy changes to keep us safe.

2. Next, the IPCC’s overly conservative reading and underestimation problems mean that national governments, businesses, and the public will be grossly unprepared and blindsided by the more rapid onset of higher flooding, extreme storms, drought, and other runaway global heating impacts and consequences far beyond what they are currently prepared for. (6)  Worse yet, a society blind to the full range and speed of potential runaway global heating outcomes can remain unconscious of or apathetic to the growing emergency, causing them to push the hard but necessary runaway global heating reduction decisions farther and farther off into the future.

3. Probably the greatest loss caused by IPCC’s gross underestimation problem is that it quells, if not removes, the appropriate sense of urgency essential to motivating the people of the world to demand its nations deal with escalating runaway global heating’s present and future threats. For example, what if the global warming disasters projected by the IPCC to start arriving in 2060-2080 begin in 2030-2040? If that happens, we won’t be prepared for the true scale, severity, and frequency of the disasters to come and we would be leading ourselves closer to near-total extinction, without even knowing it.

4. The above three problems are by no means the only problems with the IPCC and its gross underestimation issues. Please see the sections and links further below to the many other IPCC errors and distortions that make the IPCC's summary report unreliable for managing the runaway global heating extinction emergency. (Click here to learn why only near-total extinction and not total extinction is our most likely outcome if we failed to make the 2025 required global fossil fuel reduction targets.)

In summary, the current fossil fuel reduction gross underestimation factor is a powerful and dominant barrier standing in the way of humanity:

1. understanding the actual severity of the coming runaway global heating consequences,

2. understanding the actual urgency of the runaway global heating extinction emergency, and

3. eventually resolving the global warming extinction emergency. 

Conflicts of interest and the IPCC’s gross underestimation problem

Because the IPCC's final summary report is subjected to a line-by-line review/revision by representatives from more than 100 world governments, all of whom must individually approve and sign off on the final summary document before it is presented to the public, it is only reasonable to consider that inherent national conflicts of interest will also act to water down, delay, or delete those sections of each global warming report that directly and significantly impact the overall military, security, economics, or other key well-being factors of the sign-off nation.

For example, countries like Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Russia, the United States, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Iran have huge portions of their annual gross domestic product (GDP) dependent upon producing and/or exporting fossil fuels. If there were a sudden and significant mandated reduction in the use of global fossil fuel, some of these countries, particularly the ones with large national debts or without large financial reserves like Russia, Venezuela, the United States, Iraq, and Iran, could plunge into rapid economic decline and in some cases, possibly even social and political unrest or collapse. (7)  Unless something shifts radically, these serious conflicts of interest in sign-off nations will be a continuous source of watered-down or missing key facts.

Our challenge to any climate scientist or climate researcher

We actively challenge any climate scientist or researcher to prove our analysis of IPCC climate summary reports wrong, particularly regarding the IPCC's serious errors, underestimations, and cooked books in their summary reports.

Below please see our additional links to these many serious errors, underestimations, cooked books issues, and other IPCC problems.

To accept our IPCC gross underestimation and errors challenge, it is necessary to read ALL eight of the IPCC's different problem links below. When you are done with them, we doubt any serious climate researcher would continue to rely on the IPCC's summary climate reports without severely discounting or questioning those IPCC summary facts. 

Below please find the additional reasons the IPCC has failed to manage the runaway global heating emergency and properly inform the public about the real risks and the urgency of the runaway global heating emergency. 

There are many IPCC gross underestimation factors and errors:

1. Click here to see precisely how the IPCC literally "cooked the books" and grossly skewed the current IPCC global fossil fuel reduction calculations far lower than they should be by including unproven and non-existent "carbon sucking unicorn" technology into their projections.

This corruption and falsification of the global carbon reduction calculations allowed the major fossil fuel-producing nations and fossil-fuel industries to continue to do "business as usual." 

2. Click here to see the latest 2022 IPCC climate change summary critical climate sensitivity error. Because of only this ongoing climate sensitivity error, the IPCC's newest climate consequence predictions, timeframes, and remedial action information will be underestimated by as much as 25% or more. (This 25% does not include the effect of the other IPCC errors described in the links in this section.) 

3. Click here to see a new study showing that the IPCC does not include many critical climate system factors in its computer climate modeling. Those missing factors equal wrong and distorted results. This Feb 2022 paper strongly refutes the absurd IPCC claim that the Arctic sea ice melt-decline is reversible. It is not reversible, and that is a monster problem for humanity's weather, seasonal climate, and future!

4. Click here to see the IPCC's Perfect Day problem with its computer climate modeling. This alone will significantly lower the accuracy of all of the IPCC's consequence predictions, timetables, and fossil fuel reduction remedies. This alone could affect IPCC predictions by 20-40%.

5. Click here to see the eleven key climate change tipping points and feedback loops that have been almost entirely excluded from the IPCC calculations for how much fossil fuel use we must reduce each year globally. 

 

 

6. The IPCC has been selling a net-zero pledge program that will can not and will not save us in time from near-total extinction. It does this because it somehow still can't tell the world, even that at this point, and after 60 years of ignoring warnings and not reducing fossil fuel use when the reductions could have been easier and gradual, that we must now reduce total global fossil fuel use close to 75% by 2025 or we will lose most of humanity.

Effectively and radically reducing global fossil fuel use in all developed countries by 2025 to meet the 2025 targets is not the ineffective and deceptive net-zero emissions by 2030, 2040, 2050, or 2060 target pledges you hear all over the media and from our governments. These net-zero emission schemes cannot scale up fast enough to save us from mass to near-total extinction.

Please see this page for the science behind why these future net-zero emission IPCC-derived pledges are illusions that steal the real urgency of this emergency from the minds of the world's population and will not work in time to save humanity. Discover why you and your children will pay a very steep price for the false and illusionary IPCC net-zero runaway global heating solution and these currently mostly impotent national pledges.

7. Click here to see the IPCC's atmospheric methane calculation problems. This again produces a huge drop in the reliability and usefulness of the IPCC climate prediction and remedy work.

After you have read the above link, here are a few additional underestimations and errors in the IPCC's methane calculations:

1. Methane is increasing very fast, and it is not all animal agriculture or fossil fuels. However, none of the current fossil fuel reduction targets include calculations of the many large sources of amplifying methane feedbacks nor a decline in natural carbon sinks.

2. Today all global wetlands are pouring out feedback methane emissions. Tropical forests (Amazon and central Africa) also pour out CO2, reducing their land carbon sink abilities. The Oceans are also not included in IPCC projections except to assume incorrectly that the ocean as a carbon sink will continue taking in carbon as is currently.

3. The IPCC is still using the policy deferred methane global warming potential (GWP) of 25X CO2 over 100 years. The IPCC gives a 20-year methane GWP of 86 but uses it. Methane emissions last 10-15 years. Because methane is constantly emitted, the period that the IPCC should use is methane GWP 100.

 

 

8: The IPCC also does not adequately include the critical and increasing decline in carbon sinks in its current computer modeling. The condition of our global carbon sinks is critical 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. 

Click here to see the four reasons why the IPCC's 26 global climate conferences have failed to produce results or legitimate global fossil fuel reduction targets. To learn more about these IPCC climate conference failures, click here or the image below. The article starts with the most recent 2021 COP26 conference in Glasgow, Scotland.

 

 

 

 

Additional reasons for our 60 years of failure in reducing fossil fuel use and runaway global heating

1. The world's population has been subjected to a massive fossil fuel industry-sponsored disinformation and misinformation program. It makes the former disinformation and misinformation programs of the cigarette companies telling the public their products would not cause any harm to look like child's play.

Billions of dollars have been spent through the media and bogus think tanks, and bogus studies to present "evidence" that runaway global heating is not real, or that any real harm won't show up until after 2100, or a host of other falsehoods that serve a single purpose. Their intent is to create doubt about the legitimacy of the problem, which paralyzes necessary action and removes any urgency toward solving the problem. If you'd like to see just how far the fossil fuel companies will go to stop or slow the real fossil fuel usage reductions we need to make, click here.

2. We are not accounting for the cost of runaway global heating inaction in our cost-to-benefit studies. Its latest report, Fatal Calculations, takes aim at economists for failing to adequately account for the costs of inaction in their models, which in turn has been used by politicians to delay action.

“Despite the escalating climate disasters globally, not least our fires, this preoccupation with the cost of action — and a blind eye turned to overwhelming future damage — remains the dominant thinking within politics, business, and finance,” the Breakthrough report found.

“Because climate change is now an existential threat to human society, risk management and the calculation of potential future damages must pay disproportionate attention to the high-end, extreme possibilities, rather than focus on middle-of-the-spectrum probabilities.”

In a discussion paper released in May, titled COVID-19 climate lessons, Breakthrough draws parallels between climate change and the lack of preparedness for the pandemic.

“The world is sleepwalking towards disaster. The UN climate science and policymaking institutions are not fit-for-purpose and have never examined or reported on the existential risks,” the paper reads.

“There are no national or global processes to ensure that such risk assessments are undertaken and are efficacious. The World Economic Forum reports on high-end global risks, including climate disruption, once a year, and then everybody goes back to ignoring the real risks.”

3. We strongly recommend you watch this video by Peter Carter (an advisor to Job One.) It covers the history of the IPCC and its many conferences and global fossil fuel reduction failures.

4. There are many other contributing reasons for why we have failed to resolve the runaway global heating crisis over the last 60 years, but a major reason lies within the data we've been given and the organization trusted to give us that data. More of these other contributing reasons are fully discussed in the new book Climageddon.

 

 

 

 

The public has been grossly and systemically misinformed about the actual condition of the runaway global heating extinction emergency

The general public has no idea how bad it will get or how soon that will happen. The public also has no idea what the real global fossil fuel reduction targets must be, and they do not fully realize they are already unsafe and at extreme climate extinction risk.

The unfortunate, widespread, and gross misinformation given to the public about how bad runaway global heating is currently, will become, and that it is now almost out of control has occurred in significant part because of:

1. the 60-year continuous and well-funded disinformation program of the fossil fuel industry. 
2. major miscalculations, errors, and gross underestimations from the IPCC the world’s leading global warming authority by about 20-40% or more concerning how fast and severe the consequences of runaway global heating will be. 
   
3. continuously failing to effectively slow or reverse runaway global heating. This is in spite of 60 years of loud and detailed warnings by credible climate scientists, verified scientific research, and 26 international conferences on how to solve the runaway global heating crisis.
   
4. we have crossed too many known and unknown important runaway global heating tipping points over the last 30+ years within our climate systems and subsystems that the public still does not know about. This tipping point crossing process invariably locks us into crossing even more dangerous known and unknown runaway global heating tipping points at faster and faster rates, which once again spikes up average global temperature far beyond what has been predicted by our global warming authorities. After we hit carbon 500 ppm, which is currently inescapable, we will hit carbon 600 ppm, which will most probably trigger a massive release of methane from the methane clathrate crystals found on the coastal ocean shelves, and that will trigger another massive temperature increase and the end of civilization in a massive extinction event, exactly as it has happened before.
   
5. unconscionable groupthink illusions and delusions used and held by our global warming authorities at the Climate Conferences concerning possibilities of currently nonexistent atmospheric carbon removal and other new technologies, which may or may not be discovered and successfully implemented until sometime after 2050!
6. the complexity of the global climate: the massive number of interconnections, interactions, interdependencies, tipping points, and nonlinear reactions within the climate's many complex adaptive systems and subsystems, making the big picture crisis of falling into irreversible runaway global heating invisible to all but a few scientists and big data analysts capable of processing such massive data complexity.
7. we are now trapped by the reality of the minimum time needed to convert all global fossil fuel energy generation systems into green energy generation systems (currently over 100 years and probably much more). This means carbon in the atmosphere will reach carbon 500 ppm, where all ice and glaciers on the planet will begin and continue melting.

Illustrating the IPCC's underestimation

(The graphs below will help you visualize what the IPCC gross underestimation errors mean in various time frames and scenarios.)

The previously mentioned underestimation problems with the IPCC are not even its worst runaway global heating data integrity problem. It also has a problem with its runaway global heating tipping point and climate feedback education and disclosure scenarios.

To fully appreciate how important that fatal flaw is, it is necessary to review a bit of basic logic. There is a principle in logic that if all or a significant part of the foundational premise upon which you build a theory or solution is insufficient or false, the consequent theory or solution created will also be insufficient or false either in total or to a significant degree.

Keep this principle of logic in mind as there is a giant data analysis fatal flaw in the premise upon which the IPCC builds its global warming risk analysis for its global warming consequence prediction scenarios and timetables. To many individuals who are well-informed about global warming, this lack of cognizance by the IPCC about this second tipping point and climate feedback issue is seen as the one fatal flaw that will most quickly force us unknowingly into the later phases of the new Climageddon Scenario global warming prediction model.

Let’s review the four newest runaway global heating prediction scenarios provided in 2014 by the IPCC to the world’s politicians and policymakers. It will provide foundational evidence for the biggest flaw in the IPCC’s global warming risk analysis process and consequence prediction scenarios.

The following four global warming prediction scenarios of the IPCC are based on the assumption that we have no major climate system surprises such as going over more global warming tipping points. Those predictions are:

Scenario One: Global warming is, at the most optimistic of projections, only a 2° Celsius increase by 2100 (3.6° degrees Fahrenheit).

Scenario Two: Global warming is, at a more likely projection, a 3° Celsius increase by 2100 (5.4° degrees Fahrenheit).

Scenario Three: Global warming is, at the less optimistic of IPCC projections, only a 4° Celsius increase by 2100 (7.2° degrees Fahrenheit).

Scenario Four: Global warming is, at the least optimistic of IPCC projections, a 6° or more Celsius increase by 2100 (10.8°+ degrees Fahrenheit).

 

This graph shows four different trajectories for greenhouse gas concentrations. These representative concentration pathways (RCPs) show four potential climate futures. The lowest pathway, RCP2.6 (the bold blue line) shows an average global temperature increase of 1° Celsius. The highest pathway, RCP8.5, shows an average increase of 2.0° to 3.7° Celsius. Source: IPCC, 2013, FAQ 12.1, Figure 1.  (8)

 

From each of the four IPCC prediction scenarios, what is missing and what has been unwisely omitted is the essential inclusion of tipping point calculations. The IPCC’s four prediction scenarios rest on the assumption that we will never go over any global warming tipping points in any of the climate’s major or minor systems or subsystems.

Planning for everything to go perfectly is the perfect plan for failure!

In effect, what the IPCC has done is to all but remove or ignore high-impact, often unrecoverable global warming, climate, human, and biological system tipping point variables that should have been included in an accurate and complete risk spectrum analysis. Without including and considering these critical high-impact tipping point consequence events in their master risk analysis, the IPCC has not met the minimum essential data inclusion threshold necessary to create a valid and complete global warming risk analysis that could be used to properly inform our politicians and policymakers, as well as the general public, of all real and significant current and future risks and timetables their nations and people face.

 

 

Correcting the underestimation in the current IPCC future average global temperature projections

It is useful to now update the IPCC’s four most recent 2014 average global temperature and time frame predictions (listed previously) while compensating for their regular underestimations of about 25-40%. Please keep in mind the IPCC’s 2014 prediction scenarios also do not include any calculations or adjustments for crossing more global warming tipping points during their prediction scenario periods.

Here is what the IPCC’s temperature and arrival date estimates might look like if their underestimation bias were corrected:

In IPCC Scenario 1, their most optimistic projection, they say we will have only a 2° Celsius increase by 2100 (3.6° Fahrenheit). (Please note that in all 4 graphs below, CS stands for Climageddon Scenario and the 25% and 40% are underestimation correction levels for the 4 IPCC prediction levels.)

At the 25% underestimation level, this means that we will reach 2.5° Celsius (4.5° Fahrenheit) about 21 years sooner than they predict will occur—at about 2079. This puts us in the latter part of Phase 1 of the Climageddon Scenario, or more likely, in the beginning of Phase 2.

 

 

At the 40% underestimation level, we will reach 2.9° Celsius (5.2°+ Fahrenheit) roughly 34 years sooner than they predict—at about 2066. This puts us somewhere within Phase 2 of the Climageddon Scenario.  

In IPCC Scenario 2, their more likely projection, they say we will have only a 3° Celsius increase by 2100 (5.4° Fahrenheit).

At the 25% underestimation level, this means we will reach 3.5° Celsius (6.9° Fahrenheit) about 21 years sooner than they predict—at about 2079. This puts us in or near Phase 3 of the Climageddon Scenario.  

At the 40% underestimation level, we will reach 4.2° Celsius (7.5° Fahrenheit) about 34 years sooner than they predict—at about 2066. This puts us in or near Phase 4 of the Climageddon Scenario.  

 

 

 

In IPCC Scenario 3, their less optimistic projection, they say we will have only a 4° Celsius increase by 2100 (7.2°+ Fahrenheit).

At the 25% underestimation level, this means we will reach 5° Celsius (about 9° Fahrenheit) 21 years sooner than they predict—at about 2079. This puts us in or near the chaos and collapse of Phase 5 of the Climageddon Scenario.  

At the 40% underestimation level, we will reach 5.6° Celsius (10° Fahrenheit) 34 years sooner than they predict—at about 2066. This also puts us in or closer to phase 5 of the Climageddon Scenario.

 

 

 

In IPCC Scenario 4, their least optimistic projection, they say we will have only a 6° or more Celsius increase by 2100 (10.8°+ Fahrenheit). A 6° Celsius increase in average global temperature is the end of most human life as we know it.

At the 25% underestimation level, this means that we will reach 7.8° Celsius (about 13.5° Fahrenheit) at about 2079. This will put us well into Phase 5 of the Climageddon Scenario.  

At the 40% underestimation level, we will reach 8.4° Celsius (about 15° Fahrenheit) —at about 2066. This could put us in Phase 5 of the Climageddon Scenario faster than anyone is ready for.

 

 

 

(Please note: In the four corrected IPCC graphs above, we are using recalculated temperature estimates to extrapolate approximate placement positions for the graph’s new projected timelines. Rather than show the precise new time frames of a particular recalculated temperature, these four graphs illustrate relative differences from the IPCC’s predicted temperatures and time frames. These four graphs additionally point toward how unanticipated higher temperatures will also dramatically accelerate consequence arrival times and increase consequence severity. It is difficult to precisely recalculate new timeframes with temperature calculations only because there is always a delay in the actual time that it takes to get to higher temperatures because of inertia and momentum factors in climate systems and subsystems.)

 

What can we do to fix this IPCC nightmare?

The IPCC’s 20-40 % underestimation and non-existent carbon capture technology calculations present an absolute nightmare for anyone trying to do long-term planning, whether it be personal, business, local, regional, or national. When we take into account the IPCC's underestimation problems and bogus carbon capture calculations and come up with new temperature and timetable predictions, it appears any mid-term to long-term future planning based on the IPCC's predictions will put us in a world of hurt.

When we reach 5 to 6° Celsius (9-10.8° Fahrenheit), it will be the end of the world as we know it, and it is not far off in the future. When you factor in crossing more runaway global heating tipping points (which is highly probable and which was completely absent from the IPCC predictions, our world is in serious peril, not 40 or 80 years from now, but right now and over the next 20-40 years.

It is illogical beyond all comprehension to assign full responsibility for evaluating and predicting the single greatest security threat of the 21st century to a group of volunteer and underfunded climate scientists with the best of intentions who submit their research to a bureaucratic and underfunded United Nations agency. But who should be doing this work?

 

If not the IPCC, who is most qualified to take over the research and do future needed climate and global heating research and predictions?

It is clear the IPCC is not doing its job. The world's current leading authority on global warming is no longer the appropriate agent we can trust to manage the research, analysis, and planning necessary to save us from the escalating runaway global heating extinction emergency. The danger is so great and imminent that we can’t keep doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result.

We have no other rational choice but to bypass any existing failed authorities, structures, and processes that have not worked and are not working. That is the only way we will have any honest hope of handling the runaway global heating extinction emergency. 

Click here to read all about who should replace the IPCC and the many reasons why these organizations will be far, far better at doing the needed climate and global heating research and projections and protecting the future of humanity.

 

From what you have read above, do you feel deceived by the IPCC regarding these critical issues?

There are so many inaccuracies and underestimation problems within the IPCC climate summary reports that a rational individual would be justified in wondering if:

1. Are the IPCC's senior administrators super-incompetent, or have they been entirely compromised by United Nations political in-fighting? Or,

2. Are the IPCC's senior administrators secretly receiving payoffs from the fossil fuel industry representatives? Or,

3. Is there a conscious and intentional conspiracy by various interests to systemically deceive the general public regarding the current and future levels of safety and security relating to the real threats and timeframes of the runaway global heating extinction emergency? Or,

4. Are more than one of the above true?

There have been too many serious climate calculations problems over decades for these problems to be just accidental. It is not unreasonable to feel a sense of betrayal and a grossly misplaced trust in the IPCC.

Furthermore, the above questions are crucial to our future because the greatest loss caused by IPCC's underestimation and error problems is that it quells, if not removes, the appropriate sense of urgency essential to motivating the world to immediately deal with the runaway global heating extinction emergency's present and accelerating future threats.

Summary

• Because of the IPPC calculation problems listed above, the IPCC has repeatedly failed to adjust and adequately compensate for its failure to include all known climate tipping points, feedback loops, and the other serious error factors (above) in its calculations for its climate consequence predictions and its targets for correct global fossil fuel reductions. Therefore the IPCC's underestimated consequence predictions and global fossil fuel targets should not be relied upon without discounting them by 20-40% or more. 

• Not only does the IPCC have a serious data underestimation problem, but it also has a problem with its runaway global heating tipping point education and disclosure scenarios.

• The recognized world authority on global warming has failed us. Continuing to use the IPCC’s inadequate runaway global heating data and the ever-increasing fossil fuel pollution of our atmosphere will inevitably lead to crossing more runaway global heating tipping points.

• The IPCC’s 25-40% underestimations will create an absolute nightmare for anyone trying to do mid-term or long-term planning, whether it be personal, business, city, or national, because the wrong facts will lead them to wrong actions and failure.

• When you factor in crossing more runaway global heating tipping points (which is highly probable and which was completely absent from the IPCC predictions), our world is in serious peril, not 40 or 80 years from now, but now and over the next 20-40 years.
• It is illogical beyond all comprehension to assign full responsibility for evaluating and predicting the single greatest security threat of the 21st century to a group of volunteer and underfunded climate scientists who submit their research to a bureaucratic and underfunded United Nations agency.
• The unresolved runaway global heating danger is so great and imminent that we have no other rational choice but to bypass any existing failed structures or processes that have not worked or are not working effectively.
• The IPCC’s illusions and delusions about a new miracle technology that will come into being and save us at the last minute sometime in the second half of the 21st century will be the undoing of us all.
• At best, we had about 40 years to make the necessary changes when we were warned 60 years ago by climate scientists. If we are very, very lucky, we have about ten years left to make the radical, costly, and painful changes that would've been far easier, cheaper, and less painful had we begun them 60 years ago.
• It is critically important to also understand that no compensatory calculations for the effects of any runaway global heating tipping points being crossed were ever included in the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) calculations for precisely how much we have to reduce our global fossil fuel use to save ourselves from extinction. This is important because the IPCC's global fossil fuel reduction calculations are currently being used by all of the member governments of the United Nations (about 190 countries) for setting their own internal national fossil fuel reduction programs. This horrific failure to include crossing any runaway global heating tipping points in our current global and national fossil fuel reduction calculations is also true for the world's most recent 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. This omission of including proper calculations for crossing global warming tipping points as the world continues to warm is the recipe for mutually assured destruction. Yes, this failure to include allowance calculations for crossed tipping points shockingly also means that the national fossil fuel reduction programs of every member of the United Nations using the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement targets are also based on incomplete and inaccurate calculations. (Click here for the correct 2025 global fossil fuel reduction targets.) And finally,
• Keep in mind that our government leaders have utterly failed to see the coming pain and suffering of the COVID-19 pandemic, nor did they adequately prepare for it. Our government leaders are also not seeing or adequately preparing for the runaway global heating extinction emergency, which is already happening and will be far, far worse than COVID-19!
• After reading this page and the critical pages linked to it, you, too, have probably realized that the underpaid administrators of the IPCC have been either overwhelmed or compromised by the 28 trillion dollars a year fossil fuel industry. The summary climate reports administrated and created by them can no longer be relied upon as accurate or serving the well-being of the world's citizens.
• The many current government or UN, or other-promoted 2050, 2040, 2035 competing global fossil fuel reduction targets and deadlines are dangerously wrong. These wrong targets and deadlines are also promoted by many of our most trusted environmental groups.
• The above article should have answered the following question for you. Why are we continually being given so many different, incorrect, and grossly underestimated global fossil fuel reduction targets, deadlines, and net-zero emissions pledges by our governments and the media?

• Despite being the world's most recognized authority on global warming (aka climate change,) the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) has consistently understated the intensity and timeframes of runaway global heating, as well as the danger that it represents.

• There can be no margin for error whenever there is a real and imminent threat of total human extinction.

 

The essential positive perspective on the above disruptive runaway global heating and climate change news

Despite the many types of challenging runaway global heating consequences and past fossil fuel reduction mistakes that we now face, we can still learn from their feedback, and we can adapt and evolve to make life as good and as happy as possible. No matter how severe the coming runaway global heating consequences might become, if we wisely play the remaining cards that we have been dealt with, we can still achieve the best remaining possible outcomes. 

We can yet make a significant difference in reducing global fossil fuel use to stabilize and save the future of humanity by executing a comprehensive reduction and survival plan like the Job One for Humanity runaway global heating action plan. 

We can still maintain the perseverance needed to succeed in this monumental task by regularly reviewing the many benefits which will unfold as we work successfully on this together. (Click here to review those benefits.) 

We can persevere through this time of emergency. We just need to remember that our greatest challenges are also the seeds of our greatest opportunities.

We are engaged in nothing less than the most critical and meaningful evolutionary opportunity, challenge, and adventure in human history! It is our last opportunity to slow down the mass human extinction threat by getting close to these 2025 global fossil fuel reduction targets. Only reaching these targets will fully remove the near-total extinction threat. In reaching these targets, we also significantly improve many of the world's other 12 major challenges.

(Click here to discover why total human extinction is not realistic or probable, and the worst humanity will experience is near-total extinction (50 to 90+% of humanity going extinct.)

Get started today on the Job One for Humanity runaway global heating reduction and survival plan. Help save and salvage as much of humanity and our beautiful civilization as is possible.

End Notes

1. Glenn Scherer. "How the IPCC Underestimated Climate Change." Scientific American. December 6, 2012. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-predictions-prove-too-conservative/
2. "Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming." Climate.Nasa.Gov. Last modified January 24, 2017. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
3. Dana Nuccitelli. "Vision Prize: scientists are worried the IPCC is underestimating sea level rise." The Guardian. February 18, 2014. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/feb/18/scientists-worried-ipcc-underestimate-sea-level-rise
4. Bill McKibben. "The IPCC is stern on climate change - but it still underestimates the situation." The Guardian. November 2, 2014. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/02/ipcc-climate-change-carbon-emissions-underestimates-situation-fossil-fuels
5. Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller, eds., "Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change," (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/
6. Chris Mooney. "The world's climate change watchdog may be underestimating global warming." The Washington Post. October 30, 2014. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/10/30/climate-scientists-arent-too-alarmist-theyre-too-conservative/?utm_term=.8e8e665ddf76
7. Nicholas Stern. "Economics: Current climate models are grossly misleading." Nature.com. February 24, 2016. http://www.nature.com/news/economics-current-climate-models-are-grossly-misleading-1.19416
8. FAQ 12.1, Figure 1, from Collins, M., R. Knutti, J. Arblaster, J.-L. Dufresne, T. Fichefet, P. Friedlingstein, X. Gao, W.J. Gutowski, T. Johns, G. Krinner, M. Shongwe, C. Tebaldi, A.J. Weaver, and M. Wehner, 2013: Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments, and Irreversibility. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
9. Climate Scoreboard. http://www.climateinteractive.org/programs/scoreboard/ Climate Interactive. Accessed December 13, 2016.
10. Most of the preceding information about the escalating warming extinction emergency can be found in the Climageddon book. Get your copy now! Your book purchase helps support the social benefit mission of Job One for Humanity to end global warming. Each purchase of Climageddon helps support the Job One for Humanity nonprofit organization, and our Job One plan to help you and the world survive global warming. 
11. If you are interested in understanding the climate science and analysis procedures we used to present the above information, click here for a technical explanation of our climate research process.

Last upgraded on 9.30.22

Sign up

Our Climate Change and Global Warming Blog is one of the top 3 global warming blogs on the Internet with thousands of searchable blog posts. About once a week in your email you will receive the latest and best global warming news and research as well as the critical warning signs of the next global warming disaster absolutely free!

 

 

Sign up