Overshoot Conference Reports

[Ilan Kelman]

Reports from the Overshoot Conference https://overshootconference.org/ held 30 September - 2 October in Laxenburg, Austria:

1. https://www.carbonbrief.org/overshoot-exploring-the-implications-of-meeting-1-5c-climate-goal-from-above/

2. https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/saturday/audio/2019007004/climate-change-how-is-nz-doing

3. https://www.vol.at/austria-misses-climate-targets-significantly/9710261

[Richard Rosen]

Dear Scorai colleagues,

If you don't know about the negative role that the IIASA, the host of this conference has played in the preparation of the Working Group III Mitigation reports for the IPCC climate change reports, I could write more about it. Suffice it to say here that they have been the ring leaders for the neoliberal economic view of the climate change scenario world. In short, they and their research allies think that strong economic growth is just fine, because over the next 50-75 years the increasing emissions in such a scenario can be largely offset by negative emissions technologies such as carbon capture and storage. Thus, they say, we need to overshoot 1.5 or even 2.0 degrees C in order to accommodate economic growth and population growth. But they say that is OK because in the long-run the emissions overshoot will come back down to net zero emissions, at least by 2100.

There are many things wrong with this view of a future scenario that can mitigate climate change, as you might guess, especially now that the world has actually overshot 1.5 C already, and now that the energy imbalance driving climate change has tripled since 2004. But, in general, IIASA and its allies in the Integrated Assessment Modeling Consortium that work on IPCC reports rely on economic models of climate change that are totally untrustworthy, thus I would not believe anything in their reports  Their research for the IPCC reports has misled the world's policy makers and politicians for decades.

THIS IS MY WARNING TO SCORAI READERS!!!

Regards, 

Rich Rosen

--
* Subscribe to this mailing list: scorai+s...@googlegroups.com
* SCORAI website: https://scorai.net
* Subscribe to the SCORAI newsletter: https://scorai.net/newsletter
* Submit an item to the next newsletter: newsl...@scorai.net
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SCORAI" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scorai+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/1450532985.1096076.1759990794804%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Rees, William E.]

Thank you and amen, Rich.

Bill

aka

William E Rees, PhD, FRSC

Professor Emeritus

UBC Faculty of Applied Science

"The ecologically necessary is politically infeasible but the politically feasible is ecologically ineffective when not disastrous."

---

From: sco...@googlegroups.com <sco...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Richard Rosen <richard...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2025 01:01
To: ilan_...@yahoo.com <ilan_...@yahoo.com>
Cc: SCORAI Group <sco...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [SCORAI] Overshoot Conference Reports

 

[CAUTION: Non-UBC Email]

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/CAMZghTae0%2BO0kJbx%2BdSYLyfuxMRvKNzg%3DcwUT%2ByXzvEWu0rfDg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Simon Robertson]

Further to the discussion... (the article is Open Access).

Blurred boundaries at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: the role of integrated assessment models in the science–society contract

In this article, the broken science–society contract contention of Glavovic et al. (Glavovic et al. 2022 Clim. Dev. 14, 829– 833 (doi:10.1080/17565529.2021.2008855)) and their posit of the tragedy of climate change science will be examined in relation to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) employment of integrated assessment models (IAMs) in the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6). The article will assess, empirically, Skea et al.’s (Skea et al. 2021 WIREs Clim. Change 12, 1-11 (doi:10.1002/wcc.727)) IPCC AR6-and-beyond IAM transparency roadmap by appraising the efficacy of the ‘actions taken’ for achieving transparency in the AR6. If the IPCC was to earnestly assure the transformation of IAM clarity from its present state of a black-box to that of a glass-box, then its proclaimed mantra of ‘neutral, policy relevant but not policy prescriptive’ could be received with high confidence. Until then, the IPCC endangers its objectivity, its integrity and its scientific standing in society owing to the Panel’s non-compliance with the published Principles Governing IPCC Work as to expected transparency standards. Accordingly, the operation of opaque IAMs for purported ‘relevant but not prescriptive’ policy guidance has resulted in the IPCC’s blurring of the science-policy boundary as a consequence of the IPCC-Integrated Assessment Modelling Consortium contingent’s breaching of the science–society contract.

_________________

Important Notice: The contents of this email are intended solely for the named addressee and are confidential. Any unauthorised use, reproduction or storage of the contents is expressly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and any attachments immediately and advise the sender by return email.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/YQXPR01MB66864E58139D63F4F4432959F3EEA%40YQXPR01MB6686.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.