Hahaha--do you know that climate denial articles agree with you on almost every point of psychology and being browbeaten by the IPCC and all the rest...except...they get the effect exactly backwards from you (everything is less scary, not more)?

Why don't you try again without the conspiracy theory stuff, and make a compelling case with evidence instead? And how about you cite your sources, too?

For instance, do you understand the challenges in predicting extreme events with global climate models? Do you know how well the models agree, statistically, with local anomalies in the past? Do you understand the difference in resolution between climate models and weather models? Do you have any reason whatsoever to doubt Professor Slingo's assessment that the tools are inadequate to give reasonable estimates of a heat anomaly like the U.K. experienced?

The IPCC reports are a bit slow and a bit conservative, but they say upfront about what things are understood well and what things aren't, and the frequency and magnitude of extreme events are one thing they admit they don't have a very good handle on.

But the idea that there's some massive suppression of what climate scientists already know is a bit hard to swallow if you cite your sources because you find a number of the points that you make here in an article on the BBC (https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57863205) which isn't really what you'd expect when "scientists nonetheless repress the fact that all this points to an urgent need to change their behaviors". Harrabin quotes quite a few scientists who have plenty to say!

(Oh and good grief--3C is unsurvivable? Only if we destroy ourselves with nuclear war instead of handling the changes! Let's keep the nature and scale of the calamity in mind, hm?)