It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world – that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.Harvard Emeritus Professor Richard Lindzen
When the story of the great turn-of-the-millennium climate science fraud comes to be written by future historians, the central role of the RCP8.5 ‘business as usual’ model scenario, much featured in recent IPCC reports, will be obvious to all. This ‘pathway’ has polluted climate model predictions for years with its wild and improbable claims of carbon dioxide emissions and soaring temperatures. A huge number of science papers incorporating the pathway are published by obvious Net Zero activists, and their ‘scientists say’ climate psychosis-inducing fairy tales are sped on their way by blinkered journalists in the mainstream press. The science writer Roger Pielke Jr. notes that RCP8.5 has been “falsified” – most knew it was fake, historians are likely to conclude, but the Net Zero addiction was too strong for it to be given up.
By “falsified”, Dr Pielke explains in a recent Substack article, he means that the pathway’s emissions trajectory is already well out of step with reality. To prove his point he offers up the 2021 evidence contained in Burgess et al. highlighted in the graph below.

According to Pielke, the gap between the black arrow (RCP8.5) and the blue arrow (reality) indicates that RCP8.5 is not just unlikely but impossible. Since the paper was published, Pielke notes that the gap between RCP8.5 and reality has only grown larger. RCP8.5 also assumes that global temperatures will rise by a possible 4°C in less than 80 years, a heck of an ask given temperatures have risen by barely 0.25°C over at least the last 25 years. Recently President Trump’s executive order titled ‘Restoring Gold Standard Science’ effectively outlawed the use of RCP8.5 for scientists on the US federal payroll, noting that it uses highly unlikely assumptions such as end-of-century coal use exceeding estimates of recoverable reserves.
The climate researcher Zeke Hausfather dismissed the Trump Administration’s claims about RCP8.5 by stating that the research community had moved on, noted Pielke. But Hausfather’s ‘nothing to see here’ is wrong, says Pielke. From 2018 to 2021, Google Scholar reported 17,000 articles published using RCP8.5, he reports. From 2022 to 2025, the same source reported 16,900 offending articles. “Some shift,” he observes.
Of course, as Pielke shows, the use of RCP8.5 and its later similar counterpart SSP5-8.5 is far from over, and in fact it appears to be increasingly vital in whipping up support for the fading Net Zero fantasy. Nowhere more so than in mainstream media where a truly awful example of its use was to be found in a recent story written by Mark Poynting at the BBC. This rising doomster star recently sent the children to bed crying by effectively claiming that ‘scientists say’ coastal land and beyond could be overwhelmed with several metres of sea level rise if the global temperature moves by three-tenths of a degree centigrade. This magnificent effort from yet another climate activist on the BBC payroll was arrived at by pushing the boundaries well beyond what even SSP5-8.5 predicted. Based on a paper looking at polar ice melt, which gave a high-emissions projected rise by 2100 of between 12 and 52 centimetres, Poynting chanced on a suggestion in the paper that the IPCC said it could not rule out (admittedly with “low confidence”) that the pathway could point to a sea level rise of over 15 metres by 2300. That’s the way you do it, job done with the first paragraph going strong on the several metres claim “even if the ambitious targets of limiting global warming to 1.5°C is met”.
In 2021 Roger Pielke teamed up with Justin Ritchie and argued that the use of RCP8.5 was driven by the requirements that computer climate models had a high signal-to-noise ratio. In other words, although the pair do not put it in precisely these terms, rigged models driving political propaganda needed to over-emphasise any greenhouse gas warming from burning hydrocarbons compared with natural climate variation. The lack of real world plausibility is said to have led to misleading policy implications.
And some! The history of the great climate science scam and the role it played in the collectivists trying to foist Net Zero on a global population will give RCP8.5 a starring role. But it will also accuse those who trashed the scientific process, invented the idea of ‘settled’ science and attempted to demonise any findings that didn’t blame humans for the weather – looking at you BBC, but you were little worse than most mainstream media (it’s just that we had to pay for all your twaddle). Blame can also be attached to state-funded meteorological operations around the world using unnaturally heat-ravaged stations to produce rising temperature readings and countless new ‘records’. Nobody in the polite mainstream brought up all the dud data since to do so would have opened a Pandora’s box that was in nobody’s political interest. It will not, of course, be possible to forget all those university employees adding ‘science’ to describe their unscientific work and greatly helping their employment prospects, not to mention their grant-raising abilities. And there will be a big shout out for all those billionaires that poured billions into curating a narrative aimed at everyone from tame journalists to defenceless school children.
But if your correspondent is still around to write the book, I shall reserve a special place in hell for a group of Lib Dem, Labour and Conservative legislators. These 200 dangerous Lefty MPs supported a private member’s bill in the British House of Commons earlier this year that, if it had passed, would have cut the use of all domestic and imported hydrocarbons to barely 10% within a decade. Not enough to even run emergency services, let alone provide warmth and food for a population of nearly 70 million. This is an extreme case, although many politicians seem to wish for measures that will likely lead to economic and societal collapse. Nevertheless, it is a shining example of how far the madness actually went in the first quarter of the 21st century.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
They are only to be judged by their intent.
My grandchildren are already too old to be undertaking their PhD s on the scam. Next generation then. . By the way, you can’t have climate change or a climate emergency when there’s been no change in tropical cyclones for a century. It’s not logical
Logic? We don’t need no stinkin’ logic! With appolgies to “Blazing Saddles”.
That line is from Treasure of the Sierra Madre.
I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ badges.
Yes, the line everyone gets wrong.
And originally, the 1947 John Huston film “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre”
Small post correction. Lindzen is professor emeritus at MIT, not Harvard. I met with him there for a full day spring 2011 getting his critique of the long climate chapter of ebook The Arts of Truth. He actually read the entire book draft and offered several other valuable improvements. The long Svalbard footnote in the chapter covering Wegener’s Continental Drift theory is but one.
“According to Pielke, the gap between the black arrow (RCP8.5) and the blue arrow (reality)”
The blue arrow is not reality. It points to the blue curve which is just another projection. Note that it goes to 2040. That is not reality.
“RCP8.5 also assumes that global temperatures will rise by a possible 4°C in less than 80 years, a heck of an ask given temperatures have risen by barely 0.25°C over at least the last 25 years.”
A scenario does not assume a temperature rise. The point of a scenario is that it describes decisions about what we actually control, eg emissions.
But “risen by barely 0.25°C over at least the last 25 years” is false on any reckoning. All the indices (even UAH) agree that the trend in that time is about 0.2°C/decade.
I only looked at the curve values differences to 2025, Nick, and there looked to be about a > 30% divergence (i.e. reality lower than RCP8.5}.
Being a worldly kinda bloke who has learned to roll with human inaccuracies, I usually only call bullshit on any kind of claims that diverge from reality by over 10%.
So I’m definitely calling bullshit on RCP8.5
“diverge from reality”
You don’t pay attention much. How do youkinow that is reality? A curve going to 2040 is a clue. It is another projection.
But more importantly, a scenario is not a prediction. It is an option that we may or may not follow. That is why the RCPs vary from 2.6 to 8.5. Do your % calc on that. Which is right?
Any time we’re presented with a single line on a graph for “global” whatever, that’s not reality, even UAH.
Nick, you’re laying out the case why RCP8.5 and all such model “scenarios” and “projections” are bullshit.
Why waste taxpayers’ $$$s on playing Excel computer games on stuff that can be so easily dismissed as just “an option that we may or may not follow”.
I choose the “not follow” option, but as a taxpayer, I object to paying for the whole bullshit exercise of useless climate modeling in the first place.
Come back when you all have worked out how the behaviours of hundreds / thousands of “coupled non-linear chaotic climates systems” can be accurately predicted decades into the future.
(and do it on your own dimes and time please)
Nick is doing much, much worse than that. Regardless of which scenario is accepted as valid, all of them require heavy government program intervention. This means state control of everything. What Nick wants, along with all the rest of the warmistas, is some degree of socialism or outright communism.
Communism didn’t magically die in 1989 when the USSR collapsed. It morphed immediately into the Green Blob. There is not one single element of the Green Blob which does not fit into Communism and state control of everything. The outcome of the Blob’s policies on all individuals is simple: you will own nothing, go nowhere, eat bugs and be happy.
The most vicious part of the Green Blob is that its advocates like Nick will hide in anonymity under pseudonyms until they have everyone safely locked up.
And the Long March Through the Institutions just kept on going.
Ignorance is always the best policy. As stated by Deniers.
Right. We wouldn’t want scientists to have SCENARIOS to examine, would we? Let’s just keep them, and the rest of us, in the dark about the future.
Notice how cleanly Warren manages his deception.
Complain about the unreality of his SCENARIOS, and he immediately accuses you of being unscientific and not wanting scientists to use any SCENARIOS.
BTW, why are we capitalizing SCENARIOS?
Nick, who cares? You can’t look into the future any better than I.
You may be trying to imply that the seas will boil in a few thousand years, but I’m assuming that won’t happen.
Adding CO2 to air does not make it hotter, Experiments from Prof John Tyndall onwards support my view. Heat makes thermometers hotter. In your view, where does this heat come from? A mythical GHE which you cannot describe in any consistent and unambiguous way?
That would be religion, not science. Your religion is your own affair, and don’t expect me to convert to it any time soon.
Nick: You are mistaken. This plot and blue arrow shows reality exactly as Roger Pielke described. The figure is taken from Burgess 2020. The blue line represents the emissions thru 2018. That is why Roger Pielke placed the two arrows there since that was reality when the plot was made. He knows this since he was a coauthor of the Burgess paper.
There are 3 emissions plots that overlay each other up until 2018 (reality) with blue plotted on top. They are EIA 2019 (blue), BP 2019 (green) and ExxonMobil 2019 (red). Beyond 2018 these lines begin to diverge as their projections differ until the lines end at 2040. Before 2019 these lines represent reality. RCP8.5 ain’t even close.
So you are telling me that Pielke has drawn a continuous curve made up of part observations and part model? Something that Mann was slammed so much for doing (he didn’t)? Well, OK.
But the main point is the notion that RCP8.5 should represent reality. It doesn’t, any more than RCP 2.6, RCP4.5 or RCP6.0 represent reality. They are scenarios – descriptions of how future decision making might go. Things that science doesn’t claim to be able to predict. They are not predictions.
RCP8.5 basically represents no effort. The calculations based on it tell us of the consequences of no effort. Fortunately, so far we have done better.
Riiight. And the Mauna Loa curve reflects how much better. Not even a blip of a change.
If the scenarios don’t represent reality then they are neither projections or forecasts and the models using them should stop at the present time and show nothing extended into the future.
No, it is not a continuous curve. Look closely. The historical emissions curve is a thicker line and different shade of blue. The projections begin where that line ends. Stop with your false accusations and instead take time to understand what is actually shown on this plot.
Keep banging that drum, Nick. Somewhere, a village idiot is listening
Well, if they are just scenarios they must be based on something and that something is CO2 and its influence on the atmosphere. Now, the main issue is A: to accept CO2 causes x ( or a high amount of) and more importantly B: that it supposes a high level of linearity. With those assumptions, coupled w NOT addressing the uncertainty principle of the assumptions ALL the scenarios are basically meaningless.
It is not even proper science. It is political science. Those graphs in the scenarios are sciency looking things meant to create the impression of science.
And then to say:”RCP8.5 basically represents no effort. The calculations based on it tell us of the consequences of no effort. Fortunately, so far we have done better” ..
Is a level of stupidity which underpins what i said. It is not even worth parsing it out.
But it is a clear indicator that you are simply a true believer. That’s ok. You basically label yourself as a troll who is here not to inform but disrupt..
Very true. But it does point to reality. What in the phrase ‘Real World Emissions’ is difficult to understand?
Obviously, beyond the point the arrow points to is a projection, as described. But that is not what the arrow points to.
This is just playing the silly game as if there is such a thing as “greenhouse gasses”. This elaborate fairy tale needs to be derided and dismissed. It is utter nonsense.
The vast majority of long wave radiation exiting Earth exits via ice. It cannot be from water vapour below freezing because the loss of heat through radiation quickly turns the water vapour to ice.
Clouds are not magical things that come and go at their leisure. Their presence is determined by processes related to the surface temperature. Clouds regulate the energy in and out.
Arguing that you are not going to get 8.5W/m^2 forcing because CO2 is not going to get to 910ppm by 2100 is playing a silly game. Surely the entire world should be applauding the Chinese for the amount of CO2 they are getting into the atmosphere and giving all life on Earth a better chance of long term survival.
Why not aim for 2100ppm by 2100. Let’s get humanity to work not just the Chinese on restoring the atmospheric balance to something with a good safety margin for life to thrive..
Think about why the tropopause is never much colder than 200K.
Show in Fig. 7 is the infrared absorption spectrum of Philadelphia inner city air from 400 to 4000 wavenumbers (wns). There are additional peaks for H2O from 400 to 200 wns which are not shown because spectrometer has a cutoff at 400 wns.
The wavenumber scale is linear in energy and spans on order of magnitude in energy. A photon at 4000 wns has ten times the energy of a 400 wns photon.
The thermal emission spectrum from the earth’s surface at 25° has a range of ca. 200 to ca. 800 wns with a maximum at ca. 600 wns. This is the greenhouse range. Absorption peaks of H2O and CO2 above ca 1200 wns are not involved in the greenhouse effect. Note that the CO2 peak is very narrow and thus it is absorbing little out-going longwave IR radiation.
H2O is the dominate greenhouse gas by far and 71% of the earth’s surface is covered by 2HO. The claims by the IPCC that CO2 is the main cause of “global warming” and is “the control knob for climate change” are fabrication and lies.
The Fig. 7 was taken from the essay: “Climate Change Reexamined by Joel M. Kauffman. The essay is 26 pages and can be downloaded for free.
The spectrum was first published in the paper “Water in the Atmosphere”. The ref is:
Journal of Chemical Education Vol. 8 No. 8 August 2004, pp1229-1230. Unfortunately, the paper is behind a paywall.
NB: If you click on the Fig 7, it will expand and become clear. Click on the “X” in the lower right to return to text.
Absorption is a small part of the story. The flip side of absorption is emittance. Above the LFC, if there is one,,the emittance causes the atmosphere to cool. All the emitted long wave above the LFC is going to produce ice above where the temperature is below 0C and condensate if above 0C. Then the ice becomes the dominant emitter until it descends below the LFC to liquify/sublimate.
If the surface temperature is below 0C then there can be no LFC so the falling ice comes down as snow. Between 0C and 15C it produces fog, mist and rain. Above 15C it gets vaporised by the warm air between the surface and the LFC.
The saturated vapour pressure of H2O at 200K is 0.34Pa and H20 to air is 20ppm by weight. That is about where emittance stops. There is not enough EMR sensitive molecules in the air to radiate more energy to space to cool further.
Excellent point, however, it is the energy released by the (isothermal) phase change(s) that can be radiated outbound without need to “cool further” that makes H2O the dominant “GHG”! The energy absorbed (isothermally, by phase change) at sea level, as shown by the graph, is transported to the upper Troposphere, where it is released to be radiated, as you describe.
By the way, this phase change energy is roughly three orders of magnitude greater than that required to raise the temperature of an equal weight of CO2 one degree!
Carbon dioxide emissions? Ooooooh, scary!
All oxygen breathing life “emits” CO2. The yeasts that put the alcohol and bubbles in your Champagne, the termites who eat your house – all emit that terrible gas, CO2.
The minor increase in the temperatures of some thermometers is due to heat producing activities of man. Heat affects thermometers, not CO2. CO2 is just an outcome of one of mans’ heat producing activities – burning hydrocarbons. Using energy from wind, solar, and hydro power sources also creates – heat!
Much ado about nothing.
UAH says + 1.4degsC a century. Terrifying
All of these various scenarios obsess about the effect of CO2 but nowhere does anyone seem to try to evaluate the natural temperature change. Since the little ice age ended about 1850 the temperature has been rising slowly without the assistance of CO2 until about 75 years ago. So how much of the current small increase in temperature is natural? Why are we destroying western civilisation on something so trivial?
“When the story of the great turn-of-the-millennium climate science fraud comes to be written by future historians…”
They’ll be reading archives of WUWT to get a clear understanding of the climate cult.
Maybee its just an atempt to reestablish The Catolic Church Global Government total and absulute control with another new manmade idea and wrapping? What Was History’s Biggest Cover-Up? The Dark Ages | History for Sleep
Dr. Lindzen is a graduate of Harvard, 1962 I believe, and emeritus of MIT, not Harvard
Yes indeed. I spotted both the BBC and the Met Office still using rcp8.5 in their models. Mainly because if reality doesnt seem to follow the path there is something wrong and we might be both measuring wrongly and/ or underestimating global warming. It is a kind of reverse science method. Tail and dog kinda thing..
A reminder that WUWT has the scientific integrity of Mad Magazine.
Let’s simplify the climate models.
CO2 is the input.
LWIR is the transfer function.
Temperature is the output.
What madness.