Our analysis process and challenges to the reliability of the climate science and analysis provided at Job One for Humanity

Overview

Job One for Humanity founded in 2008 is a non-profit and independent climate change think tank that provides a "big picture" holistic view and analysis of the inter-connected and inter-dependent climate systems creating our current climate change emergency.

While we do not do in-house original climate research, we use the published research papers of independent and respected climate scientists and climate research from organizations like the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA.) 

Many climate research papers and summary materials reviewed or used by this organization in its analysis, prediction, or recommendations are also found listed:

1. in this extensive but still partial master list of these related or relevant climate research papers and summaries.
2. in many available video presentations by the climate scientists or researchers describing their own research. Click here to see an example in the video of the renowned climate scientist Kevin Anderson presenting the climate emergency at Oxford.
3. in the body of many of our web pages, in the links on those pages, or in the end notes or technical notes found at the end of many pages.

We provide our climate and global heating information for individuals and organizations with the understanding that they will independently evaluate it and decide upon its usefulness and accuracy based on the best climate science and analysis currently available.

How Our Research, Review, and Analysis Processes is Unique 

Using the principles of system theory and dialectical metasystemic thinking applied to the climate as a complex adaptive system, we review and then analyze current and past climate change research and public climate summaries for:

1. errors, 

2. omissions, 

3. previously unrecognized positive or negative patterns in or between climate studies,

4. unseen interconnections or consequence connections within and between climate studies, and 

5. the unseen and hidden politicization, censorship, or the watering down of climate science by governmental agencies or other types of agents in public climate summary reports. 

The problems in 1-5 above can significantly affect the validity of current and future statements or positions concerning climate consequence timetables or the frequency, severity, and scale of climate consequences. Using system theory and dialectical metasystemic thinking applied to the climate as a complex adaptive system, we also review research papers and public statements on the climate for:

1. discernable or hidden biases, and

2. undeclared financial or other conflicts of interest.

The above two problems have recently become far more prevalent and have significantly underestimated negative climate consequences in public climate summaries and statements. Climate think tanks, individuals or groups operating as unknown fossil fuel lobbyists, and climate researchers funded by the fossil fuel-related industries have become the biggest offenders in this area. 

Instead of our analyzing only one area of specialized climate study like the oceans, glaciers, ice and snow packs, planetary temperature history, water vapor, soils, forests, or greenhouse gas factors on temperature and the atmosphere, we analyze climate research on how it holistically applies and interrelates to all different areas within and between the climate's interrelated, interconnected, and interdependent systems and subsystems. 

Using the tools of dialectical metasystemic thinking, we examine climate studies, their positions, and the related interactions of the climate system and subsystems through 28 different dialectical analysis perspectives and lenses. This allows us also to see, consider and value natural or human counteractions that may occur in response to the various primary and secondary consequences of climate change and global heating.

After that extensive analysis, we make climate consequence severity and time frame predictions and remedial recommendations for the correct global fossil fuel reduction amounts to minimize human loss and suffering. Our final analysis, forecasts, and recommendations always include all needed adjustments to compensate for any problems, errors, omissions, underestimation, or politicization which we discover in current climate research or summaries. Click here to see the many errors, underestimation, and politicization we found in a major recognized source of global climate research and recommendations. 

Unlike many other climate change think tanks, we do provide prioritized, critical-path, and deadline-driven solutions to the climate change emergency. These solutions are based on accurate global fossil fuel reduction targets and avoiding the most dangerous climate tipping points and feedbacks deadlines that we currently face. 

Job One for Humanity is also helping to expose the current intense politicization of climate science. This intense politicization of science by the media, governments, and the UN's IPCC acts to forward a gross underestimation of our actual and current climate consequences, timeframes, remedies, and condition.

Unexpectedly, our independent climate change analysis has turned us into reluctant whistleblowers exposing how popular climate data has been distorted to serve the hidden interests of those who gain financially (or in other ways) from the ongoing global use of fossil fuels and hiding the real danger the public faces from the runaway global heating extinction emergency.

Important information about the validity and reliability of the climate science found on the Job One For Humanity website

The scientific method deals in probabilities, not certainties. This is especially true for making climate change predictions, given the complexity of factors that interact to create the climate. While scientific findings on climate change necessarily include uncertainty, the process of deciding public policy for dealing with climate change seeks a certainty that science cannot provide.

In this situation, many concerned climate researchers and scientists urge the application of the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle asserts that policy-makers have a social responsibility to prevent public exposure to harm when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk — even though there can be no assertion of certain risk.

Climate science has shown we are well beyond mere plausible risk with today's runaway global heating emergency. Instead, we are now at probable to highly-probable climate risk levels. Therefore the precautionary principle must be applied and should've been used many decades ago.

Because climate science is constantly evolving and will always be some inherent level of uncertainty, we continually update our climate analysis and conclusions as new climate research becomes available. Wherever possible, we present predictive information in data ranges (such as carbon 425-450 ppm or temperature increases of 2 C to 2.7, etc.) Based on the climate data we are reviewing, we do our best to present what we understand to be the most accurate climate picture. However, as mentioned previously no one can establish 100% scientific certainty about any future phenomena. 

Therefore, we also maintain a wise and continual openness to scientific falsification. We invite our website visitors to make up their minds about the usefulness and validity of our current climate analysis, conclusions, and remedial action steps. And, if you see any error in our climate data, presentation, or predictions, please present your criticism and documentation to [email protected] for review.

We also acknowledge that due to the paucity of climate tipping point and climate feedback loop research, Job One for Humanity could be partially or even wholly wrong concerning any of its predictive climate analysis regarding future levels of average global temperature, atmospheric carbon, global warming consequences, global warming timetables, or correct global fossil fuel reduction targets.

We fully appreciate that the climate is a very complex adaptive system. Many unknowns remain about how it and its subsystems react with each other and with other human, geological and ecological systems outside the climate. 

And finally, we always do our best to provide documentation links to any underlying climate research or analysis upon which we are basing a climate statement or position. 

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

We openly invite anyone to challenge the correctness of our climate facts or analysis. If you have a legitimate, sincere and credible criticism and challenge, we do want to hear about it. We want to understand all credible challenges and review their science-based foundation, respond to it and if necessary, correct it on our website for the benefit of all.

However, not all published climate research is the same. The climate and global heating facts and analysis found on our website are derived from the published papers and research of independent and unbiased climate scientists and researchers without any vested financial interests in the outcomes of their research. Much of this research is from the same individuals who also 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 of their climate scientist's research.

This censorship and politicization is particularly true in fossil fuel-producing or dependent countries. Numerous government agencies have repeatedly been caught watering down or hiding critical climate findings to not scare the public or upset national fossil fuel-dependent industries with strong lobbyists. We have become painfully aware that the worse runaway global heating gets, the worse the government censorship and polarization of the actual climate facts has become.

We promote our climate data and analysis accuracy challenge regularly because we believe:

1. We are engaged with other climate researchers, our readers, and our critics in a mutual search for the most accurate climate facts and the best runaway global heating extinction emergency solutions. We also have learned much from outside legitimate science-based criticisms over the years.

2. We understand that our cutting-edge climate analysis and solutions will cause many individuals severe distress and emotional incongruence issues. This distress is because those individuals believed the watered-down versions of our climate condition and future coming from the heavily fossil fuel-influenced media, governments, and environmental groups. (The media, governments, and many environmental organizations are still blindly accepting and promoting  the seriously flawed climate summary reports of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control [IPCC.] Click here to read about the IPCC's many data reliability problems.)

When those individuals read our new climate analysis and climate solutions, many experience very high stress. Initially, and quite naturally, many react with strident denial or an immediate attack on the validity of the stressful information. They do this in part to emotionally and psychologically reconcile the enormous difference between what they have been told about the climate emergency by popular media and "authorities," and what they are reading on our website. Unfortunately, the first reaction of many of these distressed individuals is often a vague and generalized attack on our whole website, an article of ours, or our organization.

We understand that this is a natural reaction to shocking new climate data that, when accepted as accurate, will mean profound and significant changes to one's life plans and sense of safety and security. We truly understand how difficult it is to deal with this shock because we, too, have had to deal with the differences between what official governmental sources and what many of the climate "authorities" are telling us and what is actually in the uncensored climate science and unbiased analysis.

In fact, most of our key staff has been through the Kubler Ross method for dealing with the painful shock of finally understanding the runaway global heating emergency is far, far worse than we are being told! (We strongly suggest this page for anyone dealing with climate shock, anger, denial, anxiety, etc.)

Because we understand the value and importance of 1 and 2 above, we encourage any individual who is shocked or upset about our website's climate research, analysis, or solutions to challenge their accuracy using the criticism and challenge procedure listed below.

This procedure allows us to respond to all legitimate and sincere criticisms and challenges instead of trying to deal with generalized name-calling, insults, or vague or generalized attacks on our articles, website, or organization, for which, there are no effective or proactive ways to respond.  On the other hand, legitimate and sincere criticisms help us forward our non-profit mission goals on educating the public about our current runaway global heating extinction emergency.

To challenge anything you find on our website, please follow these simple guidelines:

Step 1: Be specific about what you are challenging. Include the exact statement or statements that you doubt or find 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," "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 science to back them up.

There is really nothing we can do to respond to vague, generalized opinions effectively. 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.

Step 2: Include the climate research or studies that proves your point and demonstrates what we have said is wrong. (Referencing the specific sections of your research study that are most applicable is also helpful.)

We will carefully read the climate research study you send us and reply with either appropriate challenges to that study or results for other more current climate studies that support our position.

Step 3: Send your challenges to [email protected]

Our climate research history

Job One For Humanity has been online since early 2008. Although there were earlier versions, the first complete version of the Job One For Humanity Climate and Global Crises Resilience Plan was created in early 2011. It was designed to help address the lack of adequate progress in fixing climate change over the several preceding decades.

Other Links

Here is a link to our climate science glossary, which will be helpful in reading current climate science.

See the Job One For Humanity Climate and Global Crises Resilience Plan here.


Be the first to comment

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

Subscribe to Our Global Warming Blog

Subscribe