The IPCC’s longstanding strategy is to bend the emissions curve to stabilize concentrations. Based on a critical 1992 agreement, the correct approach is to bend the concentrations curve to its safe level.

Despite its objective failure, support for the IPCC remains strong due in part to various manipulations. These include the redirection of public attention and the good-cop/bad-cop routine.

Aside from manipulations, IPCC support remains strong due to the material interests of the global rich. Seriously addressing the GHG crisis would mean a significant reduction in rich-world consumption levels.

“Denialism” conventionally refers to the denial of GHG problems, but the real danger is the denial of GHG solutions – particularly for the melting Arctic. This form of denialism is one of the IPCC’s key functions.

Arctic scientist and IPCC critic Peter Wadhams initially agreed to collaborate with me on an article about the IPCC’s performance. He rejected this draft because it is “political” and constitutes “abuse” of the IPCC. These comments reflect the conventional perspective that suffocates academic thought.

This report was a response to mounting concerns about the 2°C limit. However, it once again utilizes the IPCC’s false strategy: to focus on emissions rather than concentrations, and to aim for a temperature limit (which permits growth) rather than safe concentration levels (which do not).

Since the early 1990s the IPCC has progressively distanced itself from the agreed-upon target of safe concentration levels because of the latter’s incompatibility with capitalism, growth, and rich-world affluence.