While alternative baselines can offer different perspectives, the IPCC’s methodology is grounded in the best available data and aims to provide a consistent, scientifically sound framework for assessing climate change. Assertions of intentional underestimation are serious and remain unsubstantiated.
Although governments do influence the language of the Summary for Policymakers, the core scientific assessments are authored by independent experts and subjected to extensive peer review. The implication of collusion is significant and would require compelling evidence—something this article does not provide.
It is true that global emissions have not fallen at the pace required to limit warming to 1.5°C. However, mitigation efforts have yielded meaningful progress, including the rapid expansion of renewable energy, improved energy efficiency, and shifting policy frameworks in many countries. The IPCC continues to stress that both mitigation and adaptation are essential.
Abandoning mitigation in favor of adaptation alone would have profound consequences. Without efforts to reduce emissions, climate change will accelerate, increasing the frequency and severity of extreme weather, displacing communities, and overwhelming adaptation capacities. Adaptation has limits, especially in regions vulnerable to sea level rise, desertification, or food insecurity. Continuing to mitigate emissions buys us time, reduces long-term costs, and preserves the possibility of a livable future for the most vulnerable populations.
Good to hear the baseline orthodoxy being challenged. If we're not using a 1750 baseline we're not getting a truer picture. If I use a 2000 baseline I am 25 years old (as would be everyone else) rather than actual 61, but no one attempts to falsify their age by changing the baseline.
There is however another factor oft overlooked. Kevin Hester might be interested in this.
Back in 2018, an article appeared in the Guardian briefly like they do, based on a scientific paper, stating that during the 1750s the planet was indeed on a cooling trend, so the forcing from warming had to overcome that cooling trend first. Turns out it was 10% of warming energy used up to overcome the cooling trend, thus we need to add 10% to any current temperature anomalies. Unfortunately I didn't keep a link to the article at the time, and can no longer find it.
The exact number doesn't matter that much, as ecological overshoot is the prime driver of warming. As William Rees puts it, it's a waste management problem.
MY Grandfather who created private banks in 1915, creating the ability to provide agrarian loans, and his works and economic vitality were destroyed in 1929-34. he spoke to me and I remember his admonition, that one could not get two econs. to agree, in a room of them. The premise of Climate, in the beginning, is a tool for humanities control, and eventual Human-ism, the destruction of mankind. Some historical quotes to gain proper understanding of Orwells Theory of Doublespeak
& Doublethink concerning the deception in Climate political language. Orwell noted:
Doublespeak: language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the
meaning of words. ( author ) this is major element of Socio-communissm.
Doublethink: is to know and to not know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness
while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which
cancel out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use
logic against logic.
Quote: “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to
unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water
shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human
intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be
overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” — Club of Rome.
Quote: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change
provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”-
Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment.
Quote: “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data.
We’re basing them on the climate models” Prof. - Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for
Climate Prediction and Research.
Quote: “Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced
resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.” ( Read Eugenics ) -
Professor Maurice King —Director of the UN Rio Accord-
Quote: “the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but
less than one billion.” - Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind.
Quote: “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class -
involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and
suburban housing - are not sustainable.” - Maurice Strong, 1992 Rio Earth Summit. Mr.
Thanks for the comment, Robert. I don't think you have anything to fear. The current crowd of rulers will stay in control regardless of climate change, so nothing will change until everything comes apart.
In that sense, we're safe: The New World Order will be no world order at all.
It's a basic law of physics, biology, ecology and evolution that you can have any population of a species your ideology wants, but that population will always revert to the carrying capacity of that environment. Eventually. And the more a population goes into overshoot, the greater the reduction in future carrying capacity. Dr Sid Smith covers the basics here:
Your basic premise is flawed. I follow the C3S website and their publications, like the 6-5-24 "Hottest May on record spurs call for climate action", which reported a 0.65 degC above the 1991-2020 baseline for May 2024, but only 1.52 degC above the 1850-1900 baseline. Also, they reported 0.75 degC average monthly GAST for the 12 months: June '23-May '24, again, over the 1991-2020 baseline. So, the baseline you describe as "higher" is actually lower, as it is an average of earlier cooler years on the more horizontal leg of the "hockey stick" brings down the average not increases. The horizontal bar graph you show only goes to 2021 and Hansen, et.al., reported in 2-3-25 "Global Warming Has Accelerated:..." "leaped more than 0.4 degC during the past two years ('23-'24), so 0.2 degC ANNUALLY. If this trend continues, 0.2 dgC annual ave. increase, then we may see a GAST of 3 degC by 2032 and 6 degC by 2047, an extinction level global heating, and that assumes no further hockey stick rate increases during the future, which I don't recommend betting on.
The Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) is the energy flowing into the system (from the sun) and energy exiting the system (radiation). Green House Gases (GHGs) interferes with this process. Not enough GHG in the atmosphere and humanity freezes. Too much GHGs and humanity boils. When the ratio is positive the Earth heats up. When the ratio is negative the Earth cools down. When the ratio is 0 Earth is neither heating up or cooling down on average (climate != weather).
What you should be looking for is what happened during 2023 that caused the Earth to heat up faster than previously seen (What caused the EEI ratio to be 1.95 W/m2 in 2023?)
Eventually the EEI will approach 0 or oscillate around 0 but even the leading edge researchers don't foresee the EEI remaining positive forever.
Thanks, Brad, but I am aware of EEI. What you seem disinterested in is the heat energy production of 8.2 B humans and our heat generating activities, including burning 8 billion tons of coal annually and 100 million barrels of oil DAILY, 13.3 million here in the US. Polymath Eliot Jacobson estimates that we are generating/trapping the heat energy equivalent of 13.3 Hiroshima yield nuclear bomb blasts PER SECOND, where each one releases 63 trillion BTUs. The human bodies on this planet each generate a minimum of 11,000 BTUs of heat energy daily, so 88.2 trillion BTUs, and that doesn’t count the even greater amount of metabolic heat energy from our domestic animals. BTW, the 1.2 trillion tons of melting global ice are absorbing 144 BTUs/pound of excess heat annually, 3.3 billion tons daily. The EEI you propose to understand, must include the 220,000 melting glaciers and 321 million cubic miles of oceans absorbing heat energy as well, if you want a full tally for estimating EEI. We are burning-up and only partly protected from annihilation by the hydrological cycle. Have a blessed day.
You might be aware of EEI but it doesn't sound like you have a good grasp on what it means.
EEI includes human activity, GHG production and consumption, glaciers melting, and oceans absorbing heat energy as well because it is a systems level analysis of the problem. It takes into account all of Earth.
When EEI goes to 0 the planet will stop heating up.
One thing to note is that up till about 2021 some climate scientists used to say that +3*C anomaly over the 1850 baseline was civilisation collapse territory, with +5*C an extinction level event. In the last couple of years they seem to have stopped saying that, now it's +6*C just for collapse. Wonder what happened there? Maybe the realisation that +3*C is fairly imminent has rattled their rationality......
A 7ºC atmospheric temperature rise will kill billions. Or rather, it could, but allowing for pandemics to rage without any attempt to distribute or develop vaccines might do away with the billions faster.
It will be a race that our spiteful MAGA administration is working full-time to organize.
Yes. And because MAGA is so involved in this phase of the disaster, the recriminations against them when the S hits the F, could be monumental, enough by itself to tear the country apart.
Luckily MAGA only exists in America, although here in the UK Nigel Farage is attempting a pathetic attempt at a watered down equivalent.
From a planetary perspective, the collapse of the USA would do more to reduce carbon emissions than any other planned project, just through the reduction of international air and sea traffic if nothing else. The withdrawal of empire from the 800 US overseas bases would help too.
While alternative baselines can offer different perspectives, the IPCC’s methodology is grounded in the best available data and aims to provide a consistent, scientifically sound framework for assessing climate change. Assertions of intentional underestimation are serious and remain unsubstantiated.
Although governments do influence the language of the Summary for Policymakers, the core scientific assessments are authored by independent experts and subjected to extensive peer review. The implication of collusion is significant and would require compelling evidence—something this article does not provide.
It is true that global emissions have not fallen at the pace required to limit warming to 1.5°C. However, mitigation efforts have yielded meaningful progress, including the rapid expansion of renewable energy, improved energy efficiency, and shifting policy frameworks in many countries. The IPCC continues to stress that both mitigation and adaptation are essential.
Abandoning mitigation in favor of adaptation alone would have profound consequences. Without efforts to reduce emissions, climate change will accelerate, increasing the frequency and severity of extreme weather, displacing communities, and overwhelming adaptation capacities. Adaptation has limits, especially in regions vulnerable to sea level rise, desertification, or food insecurity. Continuing to mitigate emissions buys us time, reduces long-term costs, and preserves the possibility of a livable future for the most vulnerable populations.
Good to hear the baseline orthodoxy being challenged. If we're not using a 1750 baseline we're not getting a truer picture. If I use a 2000 baseline I am 25 years old (as would be everyone else) rather than actual 61, but no one attempts to falsify their age by changing the baseline.
There is however another factor oft overlooked. Kevin Hester might be interested in this.
Back in 2018, an article appeared in the Guardian briefly like they do, based on a scientific paper, stating that during the 1750s the planet was indeed on a cooling trend, so the forcing from warming had to overcome that cooling trend first. Turns out it was 10% of warming energy used up to overcome the cooling trend, thus we need to add 10% to any current temperature anomalies. Unfortunately I didn't keep a link to the article at the time, and can no longer find it.
The exact number doesn't matter that much, as ecological overshoot is the prime driver of warming. As William Rees puts it, it's a waste management problem.
If we include the Bronze and Iron ages and why wouldn't we, we're at least at 2.29C.
https://kevinhester.live/2023/06/05/current-climate-path-will-lead-to-collapse-of-life-on-earth/
MY Grandfather who created private banks in 1915, creating the ability to provide agrarian loans, and his works and economic vitality were destroyed in 1929-34. he spoke to me and I remember his admonition, that one could not get two econs. to agree, in a room of them. The premise of Climate, in the beginning, is a tool for humanities control, and eventual Human-ism, the destruction of mankind. Some historical quotes to gain proper understanding of Orwells Theory of Doublespeak
& Doublethink concerning the deception in Climate political language. Orwell noted:
Doublespeak: language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the
meaning of words. ( author ) this is major element of Socio-communissm.
Doublethink: is to know and to not know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness
while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which
cancel out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use
logic against logic.
Quote: “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to
unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water
shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human
intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be
overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” — Club of Rome.
Quote: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change
provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”-
Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment.
Quote: “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data.
We’re basing them on the climate models” Prof. - Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for
Climate Prediction and Research.
Quote: “Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced
resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.” ( Read Eugenics ) -
Professor Maurice King —Director of the UN Rio Accord-
Quote: “the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but
less than one billion.” - Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind.
Quote: “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class -
involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and
suburban housing - are not sustainable.” - Maurice Strong, 1992 Rio Earth Summit. Mr.
Strong was a Brundtland Commission senior member.
Thanks for the comment, Robert. I don't think you have anything to fear. The current crowd of rulers will stay in control regardless of climate change, so nothing will change until everything comes apart.
In that sense, we're safe: The New World Order will be no world order at all.
Thomas
"Quote: “the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but
less than one billion.” - Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind."
Mmmm, that's probably ten times the sustainable carrying capacity:
http://paulchefurka.ca/Sustainability.html
It's a basic law of physics, biology, ecology and evolution that you can have any population of a species your ideology wants, but that population will always revert to the carrying capacity of that environment. Eventually. And the more a population goes into overshoot, the greater the reduction in future carrying capacity. Dr Sid Smith covers the basics here:
https://bsidneysmith.com/writings/essays/all-the-bunnies-in-the-meadow-die
Your basic premise is flawed. I follow the C3S website and their publications, like the 6-5-24 "Hottest May on record spurs call for climate action", which reported a 0.65 degC above the 1991-2020 baseline for May 2024, but only 1.52 degC above the 1850-1900 baseline. Also, they reported 0.75 degC average monthly GAST for the 12 months: June '23-May '24, again, over the 1991-2020 baseline. So, the baseline you describe as "higher" is actually lower, as it is an average of earlier cooler years on the more horizontal leg of the "hockey stick" brings down the average not increases. The horizontal bar graph you show only goes to 2021 and Hansen, et.al., reported in 2-3-25 "Global Warming Has Accelerated:..." "leaped more than 0.4 degC during the past two years ('23-'24), so 0.2 degC ANNUALLY. If this trend continues, 0.2 dgC annual ave. increase, then we may see a GAST of 3 degC by 2032 and 6 degC by 2047, an extinction level global heating, and that assumes no further hockey stick rate increases during the future, which I don't recommend betting on.
The Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) is the energy flowing into the system (from the sun) and energy exiting the system (radiation). Green House Gases (GHGs) interferes with this process. Not enough GHG in the atmosphere and humanity freezes. Too much GHGs and humanity boils. When the ratio is positive the Earth heats up. When the ratio is negative the Earth cools down. When the ratio is 0 Earth is neither heating up or cooling down on average (climate != weather).
What you should be looking for is what happened during 2023 that caused the Earth to heat up faster than previously seen (What caused the EEI ratio to be 1.95 W/m2 in 2023?)
Eventually the EEI will approach 0 or oscillate around 0 but even the leading edge researchers don't foresee the EEI remaining positive forever.
Thanks, Brad, but I am aware of EEI. What you seem disinterested in is the heat energy production of 8.2 B humans and our heat generating activities, including burning 8 billion tons of coal annually and 100 million barrels of oil DAILY, 13.3 million here in the US. Polymath Eliot Jacobson estimates that we are generating/trapping the heat energy equivalent of 13.3 Hiroshima yield nuclear bomb blasts PER SECOND, where each one releases 63 trillion BTUs. The human bodies on this planet each generate a minimum of 11,000 BTUs of heat energy daily, so 88.2 trillion BTUs, and that doesn’t count the even greater amount of metabolic heat energy from our domestic animals. BTW, the 1.2 trillion tons of melting global ice are absorbing 144 BTUs/pound of excess heat annually, 3.3 billion tons daily. The EEI you propose to understand, must include the 220,000 melting glaciers and 321 million cubic miles of oceans absorbing heat energy as well, if you want a full tally for estimating EEI. We are burning-up and only partly protected from annihilation by the hydrological cycle. Have a blessed day.
You might be aware of EEI but it doesn't sound like you have a good grasp on what it means.
EEI includes human activity, GHG production and consumption, glaciers melting, and oceans absorbing heat energy as well because it is a systems level analysis of the problem. It takes into account all of Earth.
When EEI goes to 0 the planet will stop heating up.
Not sure we disagree, Greeley. I'd be shocked if your numbers held true, but not surprised.
We are cursed by averages :)
One thing to note is that up till about 2021 some climate scientists used to say that +3*C anomaly over the 1850 baseline was civilisation collapse territory, with +5*C an extinction level event. In the last couple of years they seem to have stopped saying that, now it's +6*C just for collapse. Wonder what happened there? Maybe the realisation that +3*C is fairly imminent has rattled their rationality......
A 7ºC atmospheric temperature rise will kill billions. Or rather, it could, but allowing for pandemics to rage without any attempt to distribute or develop vaccines might do away with the billions faster.
It will be a race that our spiteful MAGA administration is working full-time to organize.
Yes. And because MAGA is so involved in this phase of the disaster, the recriminations against them when the S hits the F, could be monumental, enough by itself to tear the country apart.
Thomas
Luckily MAGA only exists in America, although here in the UK Nigel Farage is attempting a pathetic attempt at a watered down equivalent.
From a planetary perspective, the collapse of the USA would do more to reduce carbon emissions than any other planned project, just through the reduction of international air and sea traffic if nothing else. The withdrawal of empire from the 800 US overseas bases would help too.