We do not republish articles from The Guardian. Our findings are below, each quoting the words it is about. Read the full article on the outlet's own site.
The Guardian reports the Climate Action Tracker projection of 2.7C of warming under current policies, attributes the figures to the report, and sets out both the optimistic scenario and the signs of progress. The headline puts the word "irrevocable" in quotation marks, but the body quotes the analysis as saying "irrecoverable". This is a small slip that does not change the meaning. Nothing else in the piece misleads.
Headline goes beyond the article
Minor
“irrevocable overshoot”
Why this matters
The headline puts "irrevocable overshoot" in quotation marks as the analysis's words.
The impression it gives
A reader takes "irrevocable" to be the exact word the Climate Action Tracker analysis used.
The context
The body quotes the analysis as warning of an "irrecoverable overshoot". No one in the article says "irrevocable". The two words mean nearly the same thing, so the slip is small, but the headline's quotation marks attribute a word the article never sources.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“The world is heading for an “irrecoverable overshoot” of global temperature thresholds”
“the report by Climate Action Tracker (CAT) found”
The Guardian attributes the 2.7C projection to the named report rather than stating an estimate as bare fact, and it gives the comparison with last year's 2.6C.
“in even the most optimistic scenario – where all pledges, targets and other long-term promises made by countries were fulfilled – the world would still heat up by 1.9C”
The Guardian gives the reader the full range of the report's scenarios and says what each one assumes, so the headline warning is not presented as the only outcome.
“every small increment of temperature rise will be significant”
The Guardian reports that each increment of warming avoided matters, in line with the documented record (R3). This keeps the overshoot warning from reading as a counsel of despair.