UN IPCC NDCs are Wrong! Stop High Risk Extreme Harm

Available Languages Search Below:
English, Svenska,  

English

UN IPCC NDCs are Wrong, leading to High Risk Extreme Harm!
Both the NDCs economics & risk assessments are Wrong!
Stop High RISK Failure!

The Actuaries report points:
1. 2°C climate warming = >2 billion deaths,
2. 3°C climate warming = >4 billion deaths,
3. Most Governments' NDCs (National Determined Contribution) are based on a poor guess by William Nordhaus, '2018 Swedish Reserve Bank Nobel Prize winner',:
 3a. Three degrees warming leading to 2.1% GDP loss and
 3b. Left out the most harmful high risk, worst case scenarios, according to the Actuaries report.

This poor guess has led governments around the world into a false sense of security. The harm is now clearly increasing and we are NOT Safe.



OUR DEMANDS

1. We demand an Audit of each NDC.
Groups called upon to do this Audit:
- UN IPCC
- Every government shall audit other governments' NDC
- Scientists and universities.


2. For every NDC found to be sub standard and fail to meet the needs of a country:

Tell the Truth: Governments, the media and the IPCC must admit and communicate climate failure around missing the global 1.5°C warming limit, and move into emergency mode.

-They shall communicate to the public the urgency for change because we are not safe from the consequences of catastrophic climate collapse.

Act Now: Measures to protect us must be implemented now; that means reaching zero greenhouse gas emissions and stopping biodiversity loss as quickly as possible.

An example of an immediate action - Our governments and media shall prohibit advertising for and sponsoring by fossil fuels.

Citizens’ Assembly: Governments must create and be led by the decisions of a Citizens’ Assembly on climate and ecological justice.

3. We demand William Nordhaus is stripped of his 2018 Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. Nordhaus's false work has already caused enough death and destruction, and is set to cause billions more and the Swedish Central Bank shall not stand behind this.


________________________________________________________

to top of page^

Svenska  

FN:s IPCC NDC:s är felaktiga, därför har vi en situation med hög risk för extrem skada leading to High Risk Extreme Harm!
Båda de NDC:s ekonomiska bedömningar & riskbedömningar är felaktiga!
Stoppa hög riskmisslyckanden!

Aktuariernas rapport pekar på följande:


to top of page^

Svensk

1. 2 °C klimatuppvärmning = >2 miljarder dödsfall,

2. 3 °C klimatuppvärmning = >4 miljarder dödsfall,

3. De flesta regeringars NDC:er (nationellt fastställda bidrag) baseras på en felaktig uppskattning av William Nordhaus, nobelpristagare från Sveriges Riksbank:

1. 3 graders uppvärmning leder till 2,1 % förlust av BNP och

2. enligt aktuariernas rapport utelämnas de mest skadliga högrisk- och värsta scenarierna.

Detta misstag har gett regeringar världen över en falsk känsla av trygghet. Skadorna ökar nu tydligt och vi är INTE säkra.


VÅRA KRAV

1. Vi kräver en granskning av varje NDC.

Grupper som uppmanas att göra denna granskning:

- FN:s IPCC

- Varje regering ska granska andra regeringars NDC

- Forskare och universitet.


2. För varje NDC som befinns vara undermålig och inte uppfyller ett lands behov:

Säg sanningen: Regeringar, media och IPCC måste erkänna och kommunicera klimatmisslyckandet när det gäller att missa den globala uppvärmningsgränsen på 1,5 °C och gå över till nödläge.

- De ska kommunicera till allmänheten hur brådskande det är med förändringar, eftersom vi inte är säkra av konsekvenserna av en katastrofal klimatkollaps.


Agera nu: Åtgärder för att skydda oss måste genomföras nu, vilket innebär att vi måste nå nollutsläpp av växthusgaser och stoppa förlusten av biologisk mångfald så snabbt som möjligt.


Ett exempel på en omedelbar åtgärd – våra regeringar och medier ska förbjuda reklam för och sponsring av fossila bränslen.


Medborgarförsamling: Regeringarna måste inrätta en medborgarförsamling för klimat- och ekologisk rättvisa och låta sig ledas av dess beslut.


3. Vi kräver att William Nordhaus fråntas sitt pris från Sveriges Riksbank i ekonomisk vetenskap till Alfred Nobels minne 2018. Nordhaus felaktiga arbete har redan orsakat tillräckligt med död och förstörelse, och kommer att orsaka ytterligare miljarder, och Sveriges riksbank ska inte stå bakom detta.

Och vi kräver att Sveriges riksbank ska göra bot genom att varje nytt pris delas ut till en klimaträttviseaktivist, tills IPCC:s rapport visar att vi är ute ur riskzonen för klimatet och planetens gränser.


Signatories of our open letter:

  1. Janine O’Keeffe, Stockholm, B.eng Electronic Engineering, MBA
  2. Pontus Bergandahl
  3. Ola Gabrielson, Civil Engineer, Scientist Rebellion
  4. Alfred Robert Hogan, M.A. 2005 PhD in progress
  5. Rev. A. Rose McHale, AAS Intelligence Operations Studies
  6. Rainer Doemen, taxation, budget and Renewable Energy
  7. Robert Thomas, BA
  8. Alexander Sauda, Fridays For Future Green Course
  9. Anders Bäcklund, Teacher, Återställ Våtmarker
  10. Anna Termine
  11. Jan Axelsson, PhD in physics
  12. Karin Xuereb, MSc (Dynamical Meteorology)
  13. Jamila Dillard
  14. Newton Saisi, Land survey planning and use
  15. Kaspars Rozītis, FFF Latvia
  16. Karin Johansson, Artist
  17. Frida Marklund, Architect
  18. Viktor Jonsson, Kinna, Impact entrepreneur
  19. Chris Ssali, Kampala-Uganda, Diploma
  20. Hanna Hallin, Stockholm, PhD Candidate in Media and communication studies







Extra Background information _____________________________________

History Climate Extreme Harm

202412 The Actuaries report


Expanded:

pg 4 '3. Unmitigated climate change and nature-driven risks have been hugely underestimated
• Climate change impacts are materialising at lower temperatures than estimated. The severity and frequency of extreme events are unprecedented and beyond model projections.'
pg 4 '4. Paris Agreement goals were not informed by realistic risk assessment, they implicitly accept high risk of crossing tipping points
• The average temperature for the last 12 months was 1.5°C above pre-industrial temperatures and the rate of warming has accelerated.
• Breaching 1.5°C risks triggering multiple climate change tipping points and every fraction of a
degree increases the risk.
pg 4 '5. Global risk management practices for policymakers are inadequate, we have accepted much higher levels of risk than is broadly understood
• Policymakers ... viewing climate and nature risks as externalities.
• Climate change risk assessment methodologies understate economic impact, as they often exclude many of the most severe risks that are expected and do not recognise there is a risk of ruin. They are precisely wrong, rather than being roughly right.'
pg 33 'Exploring water risk - a qualitative systemic risk assessment'
'... exposed to water scarcity globally,... estimates of up to 4 billion at 4°C'


The NDCs and our government models are often missing and precisely wrong:

Hotter climates activate feedback loops which cause additional heating (e.g., increased forest fires, thawing permafrost, melting ice) threatening to irreversibly drive the Earth to a hotter uninhabitable state. Imagine 60-degree heat waves in Sydney! These effects are being observed decades earlier than predicted, in line with the worst-case scenarios forecasted. Increasingly severe heat waves, droughts and natural disasters are occurring year after year, not once every century or decade. Sea levels may rise by several metes this century, displacing hundreds of millions of people living in coastal areas.

There is a growing fear amongst scientists that simultaneous extreme weather events in major agricultural areas could cause global food shortages, and trigger societal collapse. For example, the drought in Syria (2011-2015) destroyed much of the country’s agriculture and livestock, driving millions into cities and sparking a civil war from which the world is still reeling. We face crises where the scale, intensity and frequency all increasing in severity.

We are alarmed at the extent of the problem and because of the NDC failure we understand how little is currently being done to address it.



History:

2025 Uninsurable, no mans land in the fires and repeated flooding.
2024 Actuaries report
2021 review Tipping points at 1.5C

Put Climate first John Rockström, TV4.

Aust security risk.

2020 Not in models, immoral

2019 June 14: Stuart Scott's conversation with Dr. Ira Leifer, atmospheric scientist and researcher

'Knife-edge resiliency doesn't survive very well when Nature throws a curveball.'

2019 May, HomeFront, Australian National Security and Climate threat Analysis.

2018 Hothouse earth johan R

2015 Paris Agreement, 2.0 C max with a goal to hold us under 1.5 C above
Around 2013, December


1997 Dr. Wallace Broecker


1957, December, Edward Teller addressed the American Chemical Society. Teller warned that the large amount of carbon-based fuel that had been burnt since the mid-19th century was increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which would "act in the same way as a greenhouse and will raise the temperature at the surface", and that he had calculated that if the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased by 10% "an appreciable part of the polar ice might melt"

Svante Arrhenius: In 1896, 'together with his colleague Arvid Högbom, Arrhenius calculated the mean temperature of the Earth under different CO2 levels. ... Arrhenius saw global warming as an opportunity and believed that his descendants would live in a more comfortable climate than he had.'

In 1859, Tyndall showed that gases including carbon dioxide and water vapour can absorb heat.
John Tyndall also held anti women and anti Irish independence views.



1856 Eunice Newton Foote proved Global Warming in experiments.

In 1824, Joseph Fourier, Napolean's scientist, asked why isn't the Earth much colder?
The answer: the atmosphere. An insulating blanket that let the heat of the sun in and then trapped it inside.

1820 Forrier, Napoleans scientist theorized about Global Warming.

Administration Note:
1. The first twenty signing this letter with Share Publicly marked shall be publicly listed.
2. Action Network is a USA territorial based IT system.
3. Minor changes may be made for clarity.


Learn more about us, Scientist Rebellion Australia



Audits of NDCs:

Actuaries report

Technical References:

Dr. Johan Rockström Potsdam Institute, report:
Post 1
Post 2
Post 3
Older video summary of our situation.

Breakthroughonline Risk Reports

Add info from California person

Twitter/X scientists saying what is happening.

quotes from Antonio Guetteres highway to hell.

https://theconversation.com/4-c-of-global-warming-is-optimal-even-nobel-prize-winners-are-getting-things-catastrophically-wrong-125802


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/06/earth-on-verge-of-five-catastrophic-tipping-points-scientists-warn

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2025/feb/26/forests-flames-argentina-wildfires-patagonia-?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

https://www.youtube.com/c/ScientistsWarning


https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07945-5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXNxu5to2Sk

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2025/feb/26/forests-flames-argentina-wildfires-patagonia-?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/06/earth-on-verge-of-five-catastrophic-tipping-points-scientists-warn



Other References & Relevant Questions:

1. In an interview with Dagens Nyheter, one of the Dr. Tim Lenton states that billions of people dying is not what is most likely. This scenario has a probability of 1 in 200.

Planetary Solvency uses worst case engineering risk analysis. In comparison, with the general science method of highly likely, likely, unlikely, highly unlikely and is often used for experiments in the lab.

The worst case scenario is normally used in engineering with say bridges and engineers use risk likelihoods of say 1 in 10,000 before it is acceptable design. In Engineering, even unlikely scenarios are important to be reduces as much as possible.

2. Is the false 2.1% GDP loss model used to create the NDCs the same as the IPCC climate model which is missing tipping points?

Not only are the NDCs economic CO2 emissions agreements are using a major wrong guess, also the IPCC global climate models do not currently integrate the tipping points either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLq8e73-FAw