• Title: Faster than expected

• subtitle: why most climate scientists can’t tell the truth (in public) Author: Jackson Damien

• This is a good article written from a psychotherapist's perspective,

• examining the psychology behind why published, mainstream, peer reviewed climate change research is always dangerously lagging behind current research,
• and recommending what interventions could be be taken to remedy this
• This your of scientific misinformation coming from scientists themselves
• gives minimizers and denialists the very ammunition they need to legitimise delay of the urgently needed system change.
• What climate scientists say In public is far from what they believe in private.
• For instance, many climate scientists don't believe 1.5 Deg. C target is plausible anymore, but don't say so in public.
• That reticence is due to fear of violating accepted scientific social norms,
• being labeled alarmist and risk losing their job.
• That creates a collective cognitive dissonance that acts as a feedback signal
• for society to implement change at a dangerously slow pace
• and to not spend the necessary resources to prepare for the harm already baked in.
• The result of this choice dissonance is that
• there is no collective sense of an emergency or a global wartime mobilisation scale of collective behaviour.
• Our actions are not commensurate to the permanent emergency state we are now in.
• The appropriate response that is suggested is for the entire climate science community to form a coalition that creates a new kind of peer reviewed publishing and reporting
• that publicly responds to the current and live knowledge that is being discovered every day.
• This is done from a planetary and permanent emergency perspective in order to eliminate the dangerous delays that create the wrong human collective behavioural responses.

Overall scientific credibility: 'low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'high', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

This title and subtitle are totally misleading. The question of whether or not some (and I stress some because this only affects one proxy, not the others that suggest warm temperatures) temperature estimates were wrong has no bearing at all on the rate of current climate change.

Overall scientific credibility: 'low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'low', according to 7 scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis