The Death of RCP8.5 | Roger Pielke Jr

GWPF logo

,
The Global Warming Policy Foundation

In this episode, we speak with Roger Pielke Jr. about how what was lauded as the “business as usual” climate scenario known as RCP8.5 became “implausible” to the IPCC. Pielke also shares his insights on natural decarbonisation through greater efficiency and how he was investigated by the White House when he broke with the climate consensus.

00:00 – Introduction & The Significance of Climate Scenarios Roger Pielke Jr. introduces the role of socioeconomic scenarios in climate modeling and the personal challenges he faced when his work was investigated by Congress.

01:21 – What is RCP 8.5? An explanation of the “Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5,” how it was developed, and how it became the baseline for “worst-case” climate projections.

04:53 – How Scenarios Influence Policy and Infrastructure A look at how these scientific models are embedded into government policies, banking stress tests, and global infrastructure decisions.

06:57 – The Self-Correction of Science & Retiring Extreme Scenarios Discussion on the decade-long process it took for the scientific community to move away from extreme scenarios like RCP 8.5.

10:10 – Why Emission Trajectories Have Changed Evaluating whether the shift away from worst-case scenarios is due to climate policy or flawed original assumptions about future energy use (e.g., the “coal-heavy” future).

14:31 – Academic Freedom and Political Pressure Pielke Jr. reflects on being labeled a “climate criminal” and the lack of institutional support for academic freedom during intense political debates.

21:24 – Extreme Weather Events: What Does the Data Say? A summary of current scientific understanding regarding heat waves, precipitation, hurricanes, and the difficulty of “detecting” changes in rare events.

26:15 – The Rise of Attribution Science A critique of “attribution science,” which attempts to link individual weather events directly to climate change, and its role in media and litigation.

32:16 – Climate Litigation and International Agreements Analyzing the success (or lack thereof) of climate lawsuits against companies and governments, specifically in Europe and the US.

36:24 – The Reality of Net Zero Targets A deep dive into the UK’s Climate Change Act and the practical challenges of meeting Net Zero by 2050 given current energy and economic trends.

38:30 – Modeling the Relationship Between Climate and Economy Discussion on the “inscrutable relationship” between global temperature and GDP, and the limitations of both top-down and bottom-up economic modeling.

46:08 – The Social Cost of Carbon & Energy Decarbonization Exploring the “social cost of carbon,” the natural trend of decarbonization in growing economies, and the future of energy policy.

52:20 – Closing Thoughts: Looking Back on 20 Years of Analysis Final reflections on the progress toward a more rational discourse around climate and energy.

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 2 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
9 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dave Burton
May 16, 2026 10:08 am

A guy named David Maddox asked a great question at 1:14:30 on The Climate Realism Show:

Now that the IPCC RCP8.5 model is invalid, shouldn’t all the studies that used it be retracted?

Mr.
Reply to  Dave Burton
May 16, 2026 10:18 am

Yes, but never gonna happen.

Too many vested interests in reputations, careers, conferences, journals, and of course $$$$$$s.

Reply to  Dave Burton
May 16, 2026 10:18 am

Just as everything stacked on GHE should implode like the Titan.

bdgwx
Reply to  Dave Burton
May 16, 2026 11:18 am

RCP8.5 isn’t a model. It is a scenario. And it wasn’t declared invalid. It was deem implausible due to declining renewable costs, emergence of climate policies, and emission trends. [Van Vuuren et al. 2026]

May 16, 2026 10:15 am

Earth is cooler w atmos/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer.
Ubiquitous GHE balance graphics don’t + violate GAAP & LoT.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of contiguous atmos molecules render “extra” GHE energy from a surface BB impossible.
GHE = bogus & CAGW = scam.

David Wojick
May 16, 2026 10:35 am

I too am happy 8.5 is off the list but the alarmism is not over. In the last collective modeling exercise — CMIP6 — a lot of the models suddenly got a lot hotter, some with CO2 sensitivities over 5 degrees C per doubling. These hot models can likely get the same catastrophic warming with the milder scenarios still listed. That may be why the IPCC dumped 8.5.

bdgwx
Reply to  David Wojick
May 16, 2026 11:26 am

That may be why the IPCC dumped 8.5.

The IPCC dumped the high emission scenario due to declining renewable costs, emergence of climate policies, and emission trends. [Van Vuuren et al. 2026]

Bruce Cobb
May 16, 2026 11:36 am

All of the RCPs, no matter what the number are based on pseudoscience. Man’s CO2 emissions have no measurable, real-world effect on climate. It cannot be distinguished from the noise of climate, and worrying about it is idiotic.

mleskovarsocalrrcom
May 16, 2026 11:46 am

We … realists … are picking away at AGW but the doubt among many people still remains. It will take longer to disprove than it took to indoctrinate them..