This is what I see as the UN IPCC "soft denial" process:
1. Set emission target reductions that are not large enough to impact the current neoliberal growth paradigm - as that is way more important to save than the future of human civilization. As goldilocks would say "not too fast and not too slow - just right".
2. If this means that future and unproven technologies have to be assumed in vast quantities (e.g. CCS and BECCS, grid-scale battery backup ...) then do so. Being completely unrealistic in the future to fit the current "political reality".
3. If this means that the probability of natural positive feedback loops (albedo, soil carbon etc.) and newer science (e.g. ice sheet cliff mechanical failure) have to be ignored then do so. Huge and lengthy bureaucratic processes and a need for "scientific consensus" will work well here, rather than the "precautionary principal"
4. If needed, assume ridiculously low benchmark probabilities for success - such as 66% or 50%. Lower probabilities of success than in one round of Russian Roulette; definitely lower than the acceptable levels for most everyday decisions let alone the survival of human civilization.
5. Assume that the "free market" is omniscient and infallible, so drive everything through market mechanisms which will mean more profitable opportunities. Invite big corporations "inside the tent", especially those responsible for most of the emissions, to advise on such market mechanisms and the joys of "self-regulation". Keep the average citizen well away from the tent, with force if need be. Or just pick a location that is really hard to get to.
6. Make the whole thing non-binding
The fact that most countries seem to be failing miserably at meeting targets set through the above process is truly depressing. What I see for the next UN IPCC is a grudging acceptance of newer science by policy makers, a general "oops" about failing the previous targets, and much more discussions about geo-engineering (which will provide lots of profit-making opportunities) and a greater infatuation with eco-modernist technologies (more profit making opportunities). The "rinse and repeat" cycle goes around and around.
The only options, short of major civil unrest, seem to be the quick path to disaster (the hard climate deniers such as Trump) and a slightly slower path to disaster (the soft deniers, such as Obama and the whole current UN IPCC process).