IPCC Admits Apocalyptic Climate Scenarios Are “Implausible” – Meaning Most Media Scare Stories Over Last 15 Years Are Officially Junk

From THE DAILY SCEPTIC

by Chris Morrison

Activist climate scientists, journalists and Net Zero-obsessed politicians are in shock following an official admission from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a set of key assumptions promoting a climate ‘crisis’ since 2011 are “implausible”. The notorious set of always-improbable RCP8.5 ‘pathway’ assumptions which fed into computer models trying to measure an unmeasurable climate are no more. Since around 2011, these ‘business as usual’ assumptions have produced outlandish claims of future climate catastrophe which have been lapped up by lap dog journalists and politicians. The influential writer Roger Pielke Jr. called RCP8.5’s demise, “the most significant development in climate research in decades”.

Others might observe that we have not heard the last of RCP8.5. Its gross misuse is likely to be given a starring, central role when the history of the Great Climate and Net Zero Scam comes to be written.

Pielke lays it out clearly what has happened:

What matters today is that the group with official responsibility for developing climate scenarios for the IPCC and broader research community has now admitted that the scenarios that have dominated climate research, assessment and policy during the past two cycles of the IPCC assessment process are implausible. They describe impossible futures.

He goes on to note that tens of thousands of research papers have been and continue to be published using these scenarios. In addition, a similar number of media headlines have “amplified their findings”, while governments and international organisations have built these implausible scenarios into policy and regulation.

It cannot be over-emphasised how important this finding of implausibility is. It means that almost every fearmongering mainstream media climate headline and story that has been written over the last 15 years is junk. Of course it also explains why a growing band of sceptical commentators have refused to accept the political concept of ‘settled’ science and have engaged in widespread debunking. Shooting fish in a barrel is one way of describing this work. At times, with just a modicum of investigative scepticism, the stories can be seen as little more than an insult to average human intelligence.

When the RCP8.5 assumptions are loaded into computer models, they run politically-convenient red hot suggestions that the temperature in 2100 will rise by about 4°C from a 1850-1900 baseline – in other words, a rise of nearly 3°C in the next 80 years. Only the most deranged eco loons will claim such large short-term rises out loud, so the activist scientists quietly loaded garbage assumptions into their computers to arrive at their garbage-out Armageddon scares. The writing was on the wall for RCP8.5 last year when President Trump’s executive order titled ‘Restoring Gold Standard Science’ effectively banned the use of RCP8.5 for scientists on the United States federal payroll. It also noted one of the unrealistic RCP8.5 assumptions driving deliberate climate psychosis to be that end-of-century coal use will exceed estimates of recoverable reserves.

At the time, the climate researcher Zeke Hausfather dismissed the Trump Administration’s claims about RCP8.5 by stating that the research community had moved on. But Pielke has taken issue with this ‘nothing to see here’ claim. He states that from 2018 to 2021, Google Scholar reported 17,000 articles published using RCP8.5 compared with 16,900 in the next three year period. “Some shift,” he observed.

Again, those using less charitable words might note that the ultimate climate crackpipe has proved difficult to put down. A long and painful process of rehabilitation now seems likely.

RCP8.5 assumed high emissions of carbon dioxide leading to a radiative forcing (extra energy trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere) of 8.5 watts per square metre. The new pathways act as agreed guidelines for computer models that will then provide information for the IPCC’s forthcoming seventh assessment reports. Pielke has run the figures and estimates that the new high scenario will produce 3°C of warming by 2100, a reduction from 3.9°C but still an improbable 1.8°C rise in less than 80 years. Of course these new scenarios are just assumptions anyway, and on past observational evidence of atmospheric gas ‘saturation’ stretching back 600 million years they still grossly overestimate the warming effect of a few trace gases. Much higher levels of CO2 were the norm in the past in a complex, chaotic, non-linear and ultimately unmeasurable atmosphere. Climate scare bingo based on sightings in mainstream media of ‘scientists say’ will likely continue as long as an audience, albeit a diminishing one, still believes in the politicised agitprop of a ‘climate emergency’.

Finally, it might seem churlish to pick on a single mainstream media RCP8.5 nonsense story, but there is one that is your correspondent’s favourite. This article not only reported RCP8.5 fantasies but climbed even further heights, going where no other story has gone before. In May last year, Mark Poynting of the BBC claimed that “scientists say” coastal land and beyond could be overwhelmed with several metres of sea level rise if global temperature moves by three-tenths of a degree centigrade. This claim was arrived at by pushing the boundaries well beyond what even SSP5-8.5 (a newer version of RCP8.5) 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 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. So Poynting got his several metres of inundation story, “even if ambitious targets of limiting global warming to 1.5°C is met”.

Purely anecdotal, but the BBC seems to have moderated its wilder climate stories of late with the “Climate” topic on its News site relegated to the second tier of subjects. This might be considered a bit of a status drop for a subject whose authors had past pretentions to provide an essential core for all reporting. Now it finds itself rubbing shoulders with the picture gallery and the dumbed-down “Newsbeat” offering.

But we must avoid the temptation to intrude on private grief. It is to be hoped that this move does not spell the end of the highly imaginative claptrap classics that have added to the gaiety of the nation over so many years. Regular readers will recall climate change could make beer taste worse and the Gulf Stream could collapse by 2025 – how we shall miss all this copy aimed at the idiot short of a village.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor. Follow him on X.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 21 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
56 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 5, 2026 10:10 pm

They admitted it over 10 years ago

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/01/we-have-bigger-problems-than-climate-change-so-sayeth-ipcc-ar5/

For most economic sectors, the impact of climate change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers (medium evidencehigh agreement). Changes in population, age, income, technology, relative prices, lifestyle, regulation, governance, and many other aspects of socioeconomic development will have an impact on the supply and demand of economic goods and services that is large relative to the impact of climate change. {10.10}
That’s the opening statement in the Executive Summary of IPCC AR5 WGII Chapter 10 (Key Economic Sectors and Services).

Reply to  davidmhoffer
May 6, 2026 3:38 am

“Medium evidence”

What’s that? Does it have anything to do with science?

The IPCC is a joke!

altipueri
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 6, 2026 6:50 am

I thought I read somewhere that medium evidence effectively meant “no idea” insofar as some studies say yes, some say no. About 50:50.

Scarecrow Repair
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 6, 2026 7:52 am

More like seance.

Reply to  Scarecrow Repair
May 6, 2026 10:29 am

Yes, it is either evidence or it is not. There is no in-between.

If it is in-between, it is speculation.

rhs
Reply to  davidmhoffer
May 6, 2026 5:52 am

It’s been more than two months, it has fallen off nearly everyone’s memory stack.

D Sandberg
Reply to  davidmhoffer
May 6, 2026 3:10 pm

The publication of the CMIP7 scenario framework (April 2026)

  • Pre‑2014 → RCPs (RCP8.5 etc.)
  • 2021 (AR6) → SSP‑RCP system becomes standard
  • Feb 2025 → CMIP7 scenarios officially endorsed
  • April 2026 → Detailed CMIP7 scenario framework published

 Many analyses today cluster closer to:

Pielke:
“If you reinterpret the ‘high’ scenario using updated assumptions, you get something closer to ~3°C than ~4°C.”
Bottom Line:
Going forward the argument has shifted:“1.8°C rise in <80 years is improbable”, yes, that’s only an “opinion” but it reflects new climate information especially since 2017, the page turned in 2026. The 1988 to 2013 unrealistic 3.9 C and higher ECS scenarios are historical artifacts.

May 5, 2026 10:11 pm

So “The day after tomorrow” was fiction after all? I thought it was a documentary…sarc.

Reality is a true bitch when it bites

gyan1
May 5, 2026 10:11 pm

Don’t expect a retraction from any Legacy media outlet. The brainwashed wouldn’t believe it even if they did. A significant percentage of people still think humans are doomed due to fictional scenarios with ZERO empirical evidence supporting them.

Reply to  gyan1
May 6, 2026 1:31 am

“Don’t expect a retraction from any Legacy media outlet.” 
_____________________________________________________________

“Legacy Media?” Please stop buying into their BS

For-the-love-of-GOD-Cris-Farley-Legacy-Press
gyan1
Reply to  Steve Case
May 6, 2026 9:25 am

Anyone paying attention understands that “Legacy Media”=”The Propaganda Machine”. They are synonymies.

Reply to  gyan1
May 6, 2026 10:39 am

That’s what I take it to mean.

The Legacy Media was the Established Media of the past, and they were all biased to the Left.

Media favoring the Right didn’t come along until 1996, with the opening of Fox News.

For people like me who hated the Leftwing Media for their lies, Fox News was a revelation!

The Legacy Leftwing Media lied me into going to Vietnam. They kept saying the U.S. was losing the war, and I didn’t believe them so I had to go see for myself. And just as I thought, the Leftwing Media was lying their ass off about the Vietnam war. I have never trusted them again.

So you see how far back the lies of the Leftwing Media goes. Decades of lies and distortion, and they are even worse today.

If you believe the Leftwing Media it will mess up your life.

gyan1
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 6, 2026 2:47 pm

“If you believe the Leftwing Media it will mess up your life.”

The hate programmed into democrats a prime example! They blindly treat blatant propaganda as the gospel. They can’t even conceive of how things are in the real world..

Gregg Eshelman
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 6, 2026 11:57 pm

If the lying media had accurately reported the Tet Offensive was a massive communist FAILURE, the American public probably would have pushed for finishing the job and winning, securing a Vietnam free from Communism.

‘Course that wouldn’t have saved the country from their own crooks that weren’t communists, because most likely we would have taken off without sticking around to guide them to a decently civilized sort of self governing, as the Allies did with Japan, Italy, and West Germany.

Laws of Nature
Reply to  gyan1
May 6, 2026 7:45 am

What is needed is not a retraction of some “news” article, but a retraction/correction of published science!

gyan1
Reply to  Laws of Nature
May 6, 2026 9:28 am

I’m still pissed that Trump didn’t allow Happer to do the red team/blue team debate. A prime time debate would put the pseudoscience to bed forever.

Reply to  gyan1
May 6, 2026 11:07 am

Happer and colleagues should do a Red Team presentation today and challenge the Climate Alarmists to try to refute it.

If the Climate Alarmists respond, then we can have a debate.

Who would be on the other side? Michael Mann, of course, he couldn’t refrain from sticking his nose in there. Hansen. Gore (just joking!).

Climate Alarmists do a lot of hiding. If they had any evidence for their claims they would be badgering skeptics to debate.

It’s such a sham!

gyan1
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 6, 2026 2:50 pm

Alarmists have been trounced the few times there has been debates so don’t have much interest in head to head arguments. Slander is all they have.

4 Eyes
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 6, 2026 5:19 pm

I agree. Bring on the debate very publicly and with a high profile so not just all the grifter scientists but all media outlets and dumbed down government departments get an embarrassing reality check. Too much of humanity’s capital has been wasted on a non-problem for everything to be quietly forgotten.

May 5, 2026 10:18 pm

Burning fossil fuels does produce Carbon Dioxide CO2, but its warming effectiveness radically diminishes as concentrations increase.  At its current level its warming effect is now ~80% used up.  Any future Man-made CO2 can now only make a minor contribution to Global temperature.  Were CO2 emissions important, Gas-firing has half the CO2 emissions of Coal and about a quarter of imported biomass.  
https://edmhdotme.wpcomstaging.com/negligible-further-greenhouse-warming-from-co2-ch4-n2o/
Alongside Sunlight CO2 is essential Plant Food, its rise in the atmosphere has resulted in a massive increase in all plant and crop productivity worldwide.  So, rising CO2 levels can even reduce the need for agricultural land. 
Having damaged its industrial base, the UK only produces ~0.8% of Global CO2 emissions.  It is irrelevant compared to the growing CO2 output from the Developing world, particularly China and India.

Wind and Solar “Renewables” aren’t effective power sources:  they can only ever intermittent fuel-savers.
Anyone who thinks that is a good idea to replace power generators working consistently at ~90% productivity 24/7/365 with technologies that are dilute, unreliable and intermittent working at a measured productivity” ~18% or less, (~15% productivity in Europe 2025) must be in error or malign.  
The low productivity of Weather-Dependent “Renewables” means that installations must be about 5-6 times larger just to contribute the same amount power to the Grid.  Even so they are still unreliable.  If the installation costs “Renewables” were equivalent, (they are in fact much higher when fully accounted), their power costs more than conventional gas, coal and even nuclear technologies. Story tip.
https://edmhdotme.wpcomstaging.com/a-few-graphs-say-it-all-for-renewables/
Weather-Dependent “Renewables” are:
·       dependent on massive subsidies charged to customers
·       require extended costly linkages to gather power from widely distributed power sources
·       very destructive of the environment, agricultural land and wildlife. 

gyan1
Reply to  emhmailmaccom
May 5, 2026 10:31 pm

“rising CO2 levels can even reduce the need for agricultural land.”

They have! We are growing more food on fewer acres allowing nature to reclaim biodiversity from monoculture farming.  

Reply to  gyan1
May 6, 2026 1:46 am

Oh but it’s “Less Nutritious” Food” Even Google AI says so.                           [/sarc]

Reply to  emhmailmaccom
May 6, 2026 4:12 am

One nit. Even the minuscule “warming effect” CO2 COULD have is merely hypothetical, as ANY AND ALL such effects are reliant upon the assumption “all other things held equal.”

The *actual,* as opposed to hypothetical, “warming effect” of atmospheric CO2 cannot be distinguished from ZERO. No empirical evidence supports this “warming effect,” and a good deal of empirical evidence refutes it.

Laws of Nature
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
May 6, 2026 7:49 am

Hmm.. just three days ago I commented that the effect of additional CO2 in the stratosphere is a measured fact..

– Are you claiming that this is not so (putting your “theories” over experimental facts)
Or
– do you mean to imply changes in the stratosphere would not matter down here?

Reply to  Laws of Nature
May 6, 2026 11:14 am

“the effect of additional CO2”

Is this before or after all feedbacks are considered?

Some people claim CO2 has a net cooling effect. Muller is one, I think.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  emhmailmaccom
May 6, 2026 5:45 am

There is no “global temperature.”

Otherwise a good writeup.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
May 6, 2026 11:18 am

I’m not disputing that but how would a northern hemisphere summer be described?

It is equivalently warm all over the northern hemisphere in summer so it is global in that sense although you can’t assign a specific temperature to the whole northern hemisphere on a daily basis.

May 5, 2026 10:26 pm

The current walk down from RCP 8.5 and the “we’re all going to die” narrative is simple, classic, butt covering. The people who fomented these outrageous lies and did untold economic harm to billions (literally) of people did not expect to see the lies unravel in their lifetime. Their only hope is that the Dems win in 2028 and by an act of congress certify RCP 8.5 is true regardless of the lack of coal to cause it and that the outcomes now being codified into law, the Laws of Physics will be suspended. To survive legal challenge, the Supreme Court will have to be expanded and packed with Justice Jackson writing the opinion for the majority. (Apparently she can rule on the Laws of Physics but not on the Laws of Biology).

Or, we see Republicans firmly in power in 2028 with plenty of time to finish the prosecutions regarding weaponization of the DOJ (hilariously being investigated and prosecuted by… the DOJ). Bored out of their skulls with no new political hacks, done with Learing Center fraud investigations, they’ll discover how their careers can be boosted by investigating the greatest fraud in the history of the human race. The alarmists need to distance themselves now for fear of standing trial in a few years.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
May 5, 2026 10:31 pm

If you’re wondering if the above was intended to have a /sarc tag… no it was not.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
May 5, 2026 11:54 pm

I think it was self explanatory, although to “double tap” is never a bad idea

Reply to  davidmhoffer
May 6, 2026 3:44 am

Great comment! 🙂

Reply to  davidmhoffer
May 5, 2026 11:57 pm

I certainly root for the persecution of all these fraudsters. Sadly I’m not getting my hopes up.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  davidmhoffer
May 6, 2026 5:48 am

Beer and popcorn at ready, I await the show.

Even if the show does not happen, I still have beer and popcorn.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
May 6, 2026 11:49 pm

Yes, few “people who fomented these outrageous lies” “did untold economic harm to billions (literally) of people”. Please do you not forget that those people (except for a few “useful idiots”) made trillions from “this outrageous lies”, bought the mainstream media, most influential NGOs, international organizations and top politicians (sometimes countries as a whole), and they are not going to surrender. This is not the end, this may be the end of the beginning at best. 

Chris Hanley
May 6, 2026 12:22 am

Gather around it’s storytime at the IPCC: “taking the highway”, “a rocky road”, “middle of the road”, “a divided road” or “taking the green road”.
According to IPCC gobbledygook “the SSPs define the state of human and natural societies at a macro scale and have two elements: a narrative storyline and a set of quantified measures that define the high-level state of society as it evolves over the 21st century under the assumption of no significant climate feedback on the SSP”.
The global temperature change 2005 — 2100 for SSP5 or “taking the highway” 🤭 is +4C but according to the known radiative forcing caused by atmospheric CO2 to force +4C the CO2 concentration would need to reach around 7000 ppm, the rest are just as nonsensical.
I can’t see where the “quantified measures” come in.

May 6, 2026 1:44 am

IPCC zealots will come back with RCP19.84

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Petit-Barde
May 6, 2026 4:24 am
gyan1
Reply to  ozspeaksup
May 6, 2026 9:36 am

The left wing propaganda coming out of Hollywood is disgusting! Hopefully independent studios can put them in the trash where they belong.

Bruce Cobb
May 6, 2026 2:27 am

“Sorry, not sorry. We are not just scientists but human beings as well. So we had to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have had. Each of us had to decide what the right balance was between being effective and being honest. We got a little off track, but now we are on the right one”.
Riiiiiight. So they lied before, but now they are telling the truth. Wait, is it raining?

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 6, 2026 3:51 am

It looks like most of them chose not to be honest, like Stephen.

Yep, Human-caused, CO2-caused, Climate Change is the biggest science scam in human history and it has done tremendous economic and psychological damage to the human race, which is ongoing (think Mad Ed Miliband).

A reckoning is called for.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 6, 2026 5:12 am

Climate alarmism is just a single means towards achieving the ultimate scam in human history, which is socialism.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 6, 2026 5:14 am

He “hoped” scientists could be both effective and honest. A lie in itself. You can’t serve two opposing masters, which he knew. He was simply being disingenuous.

Sean2828
May 6, 2026 3:43 am

There is a cascade of bad modeling with sketchy input and manipulation. First you have the RCP 8.5 create extreme climate scenarios.
This is followed by economic modeling which indicated climate change will cost the world economy tens trillions of dollars. Roger also highlighted a landmark paper in a recent WSJ opinion piece that was turning noise in data to economic catastrophe.
Then other modelers use the economic data to calculate the social cost of carbon to justify onerous and costly regulations.
A cascade of garbage in garbage out modeling give incompetent and corrupt bureaucrats the justification needed to micromanage every aspect of people’s lives.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Sean2828
May 6, 2026 5:50 am

Micromanage every aspect of people’s lives is THE PLAN.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
May 6, 2026 11:15 am

A deeper dive into the Left brain-Right brain conflict, and quite according to theory presented explains modern tyrant/leftist behavior:

 The divided brain, attention and how we see the world – Dr Iain McGilchrist

May 6, 2026 4:07 am

They’ll just spin this as “even with the most extreme scenarios tossed out, this is still a crisis and urgent action is needed if we are to head off the worst effects”

Of, you know AN IMPROVING CLIMATE.

Laws of Nature
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
May 6, 2026 7:57 am

There is the problem that these unrealistic models “creep” everywhere..

The model average can be pulled in any direction, follow up modeling of extreme weather, economics or social cost are distorted. Tons of publications used the results of those models..

So, if they are deemed unrealistic now (they are also lacking resolution and physics as CMIP6 models clearly show), the next necessary step would be to correct/withdraw any of the resulting articles.. until this happens the field is just a pile of junk.

May 6, 2026 5:03 am

CONSIDER opening a ‘Fiction’ category, BBC, on your “nooze” site …

PS Looks like we’re stuck with this odd font going forward?

MarkW
May 6, 2026 7:19 am

Using other CO2 scenarios, they get to the same nonsense results, it just takes a few years longer.
Getting rid of the the 8.5 scenario may remove some of the claimed urgency, but the scam remains.

Laws of Nature
May 6, 2026 7:40 am

This makes no sense, whatsoever!

CMIP6 models have shown clearly and without any doubt that all older models lack in resolution and physics and these deficiencies matter!

So, from all wrong models there are the RCP8.5 which are implausible!?
Did you miss the fact that any and all statements made based on old models need significant corrections to reflect the findings from CMIP6 models?

There is the additional problem that the RCP8.5 equivalent CMIP6 models heavily suffer from that coding mistake all CMIP6 models seem to have:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2025MS004967
“””An inappropriate ice number limiter in the CESM2 microphysics scheme was discovered”””

It seems pretty clear and well demonstrated that not one group of models 10 years ago, but all global models are junk!

mleskovarsocalrrcom
May 6, 2026 8:04 am

The bomb has been dropped and the damage already done. If they were serious about their mea culpa they would put as much effort into letting people know their stance now as they did in promoting the farce. Don’t hold your breath.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  mleskovarsocalrrcom
May 6, 2026 10:29 am

Oh do hold your breath. Keep that 20,000 to 40,000 ppm of CO2 from “polluting the climate” when you exhale.

Is a /s needed?

KevinM
May 6, 2026 1:25 pm

Nit:
computer models trying to measure an unmeasurable climate
Do computer models measure things?
Computer programs usually analyze data. Sometimes programs control devices that make measurements. Models usually assume the data gathered by devices is true, then process it however the programmer asked.

A programmer could write a program that imports measurements of monkey toenail thickness and outputs color gradient kimono dragon population density charts for Amsterdam in the year 2257. The program might project a model relating monkey toes to Dutch exotic pet owners for centuries, but it would not measure anything. The measurements were done by a Zoology grad student at University of Nairobi.

Edward Katz
May 6, 2026 2:27 pm

When ordinary citizens during the past half-century began suspecting that the so-called climate crisis theory was becoming as phony as a $3 bill, the air began going out of it very rapidly. They didn’t see any rapid increases in climate catastrophes; instead, there was only the usual annual fluctuations with some years being warmer, cooler, wetter, or dryer than others. So it was obvious that the climate scare was nothing more than sci-fi and not particularly good sci-fi at that. What the same citizens came quickly to believe was that there was, and still is, a con-job aspect to the climate narrative; i.e. it just presented an opportunity for governments to convince its constituents that new taxes, laws and mandates would help forestall a bogus threat, while green product hucksters saw a chance of receiving plenty of subsidies to sell their overpriced and hardly more efficient products. So it’s good to see the IPCC to come clean on the issue, and if governments were to come above board too, they’d quit funding ineffectual gatherings like the COP conferences.

Andrew St John
May 6, 2026 9:30 pm

What happens when fear rules your discussion and not rationality is that you develop a form of thinking similar to a psychosis.
And it affects others and becomes a social contagion.
The sky is not falling.

Phneas Sprague
May 11, 2026 2:51 pm

Greetings, It should be noted with some relief that the 2017 NOAA ridiculous “high-end” sea level rise projections were scrapped in 2022 with the restatement of the most likely sea level rise tied back to Tidal Gauges. “For the next several decades.” The significance of this restatement is that NOAA turned its back on the IPCC’s predictions as unsupportable because the tide gauge data was almost hilariously unsupportive. If NOAA had kept the upper limit they would have lost all credibility. I have been in a protected situation where I could analyze the data and make my own decisions; disagreeing with NOAA’s 2017 sea level rise predictions was not a career-limiting decision. I own a shore-side business that is vulnerable to the extremes of the land-sea extreme energy regimes. I won’t impose something that is political and ill-advised on my boatyard elevations.

The first report came out in 2013. There were more grants after 2017. Coastal Community Planning grants were awarded in 2017. The blowback from NOAA leaving the fringe dangling is yet to be felt in Maine. The high predictions were recorded as dollar-sign opportunities by regulatory bodies and environmental consultants. Towns on the coast were going to have roads and infrastructure like sewer treatment plants under multiple feet of water, and there needed to be “Vulnerability Studies.” The steamroller was well underway in 2022 when the predictions, treated like data, were revised, leaving all these towns and reports dangling. They are still being used in 2025 inspite of the reassessment by NOAA.

In all fairness, if you are an expert in shoreline erosion and sand transport, and you are working for the State, are you really going to challenge NOAA? The political die was cast, and pointing out the obvious falsification would have been career-limiting. The climate “experts” are left to “interpret” NOAA’s prediction for legislative bodies, who then make terrible rules.