Move Over Oppenheimer

The Psychology of Climate Change - Jackson Damian

SubscribeSign in

Move Over Oppenheimer<br>The genocidal consequences of climate scientists still minimising how bad things really are.

Jackson Damian<br>Jul 12, 2026

29

11

Share

In recent weeks climate coverage has been dominated by a bizarre combination of: 1. Scientists reassuring humanity the risk has been averted of the planet reaching cataclysmic average temperatures, as predicted in the IPCC’s worst-case scenario ‘RCP8.5’, thanks allegedly to the ‘transition to renewables’ and 2. News that the actual, accelerating global temperatures since 2022 and those confidently forecast for the remainder of 2026 to 2029, undeniably mean we will far exceed the worst extremes imagined by this same RCP8.5.<br>Less surprisingly, our corporately-controlled global media seized on these scientists’ unfounded optimism as either: 1. evidence business-as-usual is just fine, we just need to push the renewables agenda harder and ‘be more like China’ or 2. evidence all climate science must therefore be wrong, as endorsed by the denier-in-chief, Donald Trump.<br>We now expect moronicity from the leader of the free world, but these delusional announcements from a ‘consensus of climate scientists’, including Michael E. Mann and Zeke Hausfather, parroted by the likes of AP News, the BBC and the Guardian were as astonishing as they were negligent. Many tens, possibly hundreds, of millions of lives are at urgent risk from the cataclysmic impacts of excess heat in the Earth system plus a climate-change-enhanced, developing ‘super’ El Niño. Such misinformation can only reduce both understanding of this urgency and the chances of funding being allocated to at least mitigate these desperate consequences.<br>This article will detail the simple facts that show these reassurances to be groundless before considering, why are these highly-educated scientists behaving so dangerously?<br>So, what is RCP8.5? - and what is actually happening…

A ‘representative concentration pathway’ (RCP), is a climate change scenario used to project future atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and the global heating they cause. Each RCP is measured in terms of the amount of additional trapped energy they lead to, measured in watts per square metre, relative to pre-industrial levels. A range of RCP pathways were adopted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2008, based on the science available then, with RCP8.5 representing a ‘worst-case scenario’ featuring an increase of 8.5 watts per square metre of trapped heat.<br>Cutting an exhaustingly-complex story short, RCPs have been replaced by new models, linked to socio-economic pathways, called ‘SSPs’. These in turn represent only one of a range of predictive methods, studied in a comprehensive review commissioned by the World Climate Research Program and published by the European Geosciences Union (EGU) in April 2026 entitled, ‘The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project for CMIP7’ (MIP-CMIP7).<br>Buried in MIP-CMIP7’s labyrinthine detail is the conclusion an ‘8.5’ scenario has become, ‘implausible, based on trends in the costs of renewables, the emergence of climate policy and recent emission trends.’ The review claimed instead, if we maintained current policy and the ‘energy transition’ , heating could stay within the range of less than +1.5°C to a maximum of +2.0°C by 2100 . They added a worst-case scenario of +3.5C° but only if, these current policies were ‘rolled back’. This is the ‘good news’ many public-facing scientists chose to promote.<br>The problem with all this is, not one of the methods reviewed predicted the alarming, accelerating temperatures of 2022-2028. And no reference to this crucial flaw was made in any media commentary – even though these temperatures show the review’s reassuring predictions to be ludicrously under-stated, as follows:<br>1. Science-fiction:

2. Observable Reality:

The combined average increase for 2023-2025 from these three measuring institutions, happens to be precisely +1.5°C. The intense heat of June 2026 has provoked many to forecast this will be the hottest year ever, with 2027 being hotter still.

Significantly before this developing super El Niño Jim Hansen was forecasting +1.7°C by 2030 , while Klaus Richter, president of the German Physical Society, and Frank Böttcher, chairman of the German Meteorological Society together predicted +3.0°C by 2050 – on current policy tracks .<br>You don’t need a PhD to conclude the +2.0°C average predicted for 2046-2065 by RCP8.5 will certainly be exceeded, and any claim current ‘mitigation policies’ could keep us within a +2.0°C maximum range by 2100, let alone under +1.5°C, is absurdly unrealistic.<br>So – how could all these predictions be so wrong?

The answer is simple - the time it took to develop the complex methods reviewed by MIP-CMIP7, meant these simply could not keep up with what was actually happening. This problem was compounded by the timeline of...