Editors’ Note: Multiple mainstream media outlets such as The Washington Post, Bloomberg, Fox News, among others, have reported on the retirement of the worst-case emissions scenario, Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5, from UN climate committee analyses, and President Trump’s reaction to it. This is a great victory for Climate Realism, as realists like those writing here have long explianed that RCP 8.5 is unrealistic, likely impossibly, and used exclusively to generate terrifying headlines. It will not be missed.
SCHAUMBURG, IL (May 19, 2026) – President Trump last weekend on Truth Social said “good riddance” to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) most-alarmist climate model called RCP 8.5. Trump wrote: “The United Nations TOP Climate Committee just admitted that its own projections (RCP8.5) were WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! For far too long Climate Activism has been used by Dumocrats to scare Americans, push horrible Energy Polices, and fund BILLIONS into their bogus research programs.”
For years, the IPCC has relied heavily on a global warming scenario that assumed energy absorption in the atmosphere would reach 8.5 watts per square meter by 2100. This worst-case scenario has been used in countless academic papers and the media to predict a climate catastrophe soon if the use of fossil fuels is not dramatically reduced. The IPCC announced in April that this outcome has become “implausible.”
The following statements from environment and climate experts at The Heartland Institute – a free-market think tank – may be used for attribution. For more comments, refer to the contact information below. To book a Heartland guest on your program, please contact Executive Vice President and Director of Communications Jim Lakely at media@heartland.org or call/text 312-731-9364.
“President Trump is RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT! RCP 8.5 is and always has been a scam. We at Heartland have long critiqued RCP 8.5 noting it was implausible if not impossible, yet academics kept using it in hundreds of supposedly peer reviewed studies. They used it because it produced alarming results that they and the climate activists then used to demand both more money, for research, and an end to fossil fuel use.
“Now what Heartland has said all along has been confirmed. RCP 8.5 has been withdrawn by the IPCC, citing the very reasons we’ve touted for more than a decade. Those hundreds of papers pushing false alarmism should be rescinded with prejudice.
“It’s time to base policy on real science and data not computer-generated end of the world scenarios.”
H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D.
Director, Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy
The Heartland Institute
hsburnett@heartland.org
“RCP 8.5 became the climate establishment’s favorite tool because it generated the most frightening headlines, not because it reflected realistic energy or economic trends. For years, policymakers, media outlets, and activists treated this extreme scenario as ‘business as usual,’ even though it assumed wildly unrealistic coal consumption, stagnant technological progress, and population trajectories detached from observed reality.
“The damage from this manufactured panic extends far beyond climate science. RCP 8.5 was used to justify costly regulations, energy restrictions, attacks on reliable fossil fuels, and endless taxpayer funding for speculative research built on worst-case assumptions. Entire industries of climate litigation, ESG investing, and government intervention leaned heavily on projections that even many modelers privately acknowledged were improbable.
“President Trump deserves credit for calling attention to what many independent analysts have argued for years: public policy should not be driven by exaggerated computer simulations masquerading as settled science. If climate researchers want to restore public trust, they should begin by acknowledging how extensively RCP 8.5 distorted both scientific communication and public debate.”
Anthony Watts
Senior Fellow
The Heartland Institute
awatts@heartland.org
“President Trump is absolutely right to celebrate the downfall of RCP 8.5. It was never an accurate model of the future.
“Now comes the next problem: There are hundreds if not thousands of studies in journals spanning biology, medicine, atmospheric science, and others, that used RCP 8.5 as their high end and even business-as-usual emissions scenario. These studies claimed this scenario represented a realistic forecast that would lead to imminent species destruction, human deaths, and increasing natural disasters, none of which came to pass, and never were going to happen at all. All the most extreme studies were breathlessly reported in the media as though they were inevitable unless the world made extreme lifestyle changes to justify authoritarian government measures to crack down on farmers and energy producers.
“It was always nonsense and it is fantastic that President Trump advocates for good science over agenda-driven modeling.”
Linnea Lueken
Senior Fellow
Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy
The Heartland Institute
llueken@heartland.org
“Why does it take the president of the United States to spell out today the decades-long scams of the many impossible scenarios of future atmospheric carbon dioxide planted by the UN IPCC? How can a future insisting of burning five times more coal than available in proven reserves be even entertained in the first place? President Trump should tell all the crony ‘scientists’ and fear-mongering science organizations: ‘You are all fired!’ More importantly, all their scientific research funding must be immediately terminated to prevent further thefts from the American taxpayers.”
Willie Soon, Ph.D.
Astrophysicist and geoscientist
CERES Science
Policy Advisor, The Heartland Institute
media@heartland.org
“The computer models upon which the RCP 8.5 conclusions were drawn are highly flawed. First and foremost, they assume that carbon dioxide is the principal driver of recent climate change, ignoring or improperly assessing natural drivers to the system. These include solar variability, cloud and water vapor feedback loops, and changes in oceanic geothermal forcing. Second, they assumed exponential growth in coal use that exceeded known reserves.
“The highly implausible products of these computer ‘ensembles’ were then transmitted to the scientific community via a biased system of communication, the ‘peer-review’ process. Peer review lends itself to groupthink by rewarding certain perspectives while excluding others. In the case of global warming, promulgating causal mechanisms that can be taxed and/or regulated – i.e., anthropogenic emissions of weak greenhouse gases – are the preferred drivers.
“I’m glad to see that the president has finally put an end to this nonsense. It’s time for us to follow the science and stop following the money.”
Arthur Viterito, Ph.D.
Policy Advisor
The Heartland Institute
media@heartland.org
The Heartland Institute is a national nonprofit organization founded in 1984 and headquartered in Schaumburg, Illinois. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. For more information, visit our website or call 312/377-4000.
Of course the IPCC backed off. All the scammers have moved to ‘greener’ pastures.
So who funds the Heartland Institute?
We are never told…
Who funds the SPLC support program for KKK events? We are never told…
Who funds Act Blue political campaigns with illegal foreign contributions when they turn off their credit card verification protocols? We are never told…
Who funds Greta’s propaganda photo ops around the globe? We are never told…
Who funds TheFinalNail? We are never told…
Mr. p: Excellent takedown, I can’t say it better!
Why can’t you ever respond in context to the content of articles and comments? Cognitive dissonance on steroids is what you emulate.
He knows that his side is losing the argument. The science has never supported his faith.
He’s trying to fight a rear-guard diversionary action.
Mr. 1: If this rusty nail ever had a point, it’s dull now and his comment (well-debunked by others in this string) shows the low-rent troll status he has “achieved”.
Since you are too stupid to look it up yourself it really doesn’t matter.
Heartland gets very minimal funding, from all sources, compared to the MAGNITUDES MORE funding behind the climate scam !
But because they tell the truth, backed by science and data, they are much more effective.
“The Heartland Institute is a national nonprofit public policy research and educational organization based in Schaumburg, Illinois. It is tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. It is privately supported and receives no funds from any government at any level, domestic or foreign, nor does it perform any government or other contract work.
During 2024, The Heartland Institute raised approximately $3.3 million in support from approximately 2,700 individual, foundation, and corporate supporters. Its 2024 income came from the following sources: Foundations 14%, individuals 75%, corporations 1%. Over the years, no corporate donor has contributed more than 5% of Heartland’s total receipts.”
“During 2024, The Heartland Institute raised approximately $3.3 million in support”
I just read on Wiki that the FAR-left partly Soros-funded “Centre for American Progress” received something like $37.8 million in 2024
That is over ten times Heartland’s funding. !!!
Well done Heartland for being so efficient !
Once again, if your inference is “money corrupts,” the eco-fascists you support have received orders of magnitude more money at taxpayer expense to promote “The Boogyman For Adults” aka the “climate crisis,” and they are therefore by your own logic FAR MORE CORRUPT.
According to the socialists, government funds are pure and non-corrupting, whereas anything from a corporation they disapprove of is immediately disqualifying, no matter how small the donation.
Yet, you are such a coward that you provide no name, declare no expertise, disclose no personal pecuniary interests, give no source for your suspicion or grounds for your accusation. What puts food in YOUR mouth, clothes on YOUR back, power for your devices … ???
You mean their $3.7M gross received from 2700 doners?
No doner gave more than $185K. Big bucks, eh?
Greenpeace is about $3.3M.
IPCC funding, for reference, is $9M before the US pulled out.
350.org is between $20M and $23M.
Climate Action Network is about $3M with $1.5M donated by the McArthur Foundation.
Natural Resources Defense Council: $150M.
Environmental Defense Fund: $437M.
The reason why doners to Heartland Institute are no longer listed is because of harassment, attacks, doxing, etc. In other word, personal privacy was necessary for personal security.
Which is why the left is so upset that the donor list is no longer being provided.
Very interesting.
Not one person was able to answer my question in any sort of detail.
It’s privately funded. It doesn’t have to release details of its donors.
Open your eyes!
Read the posts above… OPEN YOUR EYES. !!
The funding for Heartland is a PITTANCE compared to what the far-left propaganda gets given by the likes of Soros, Gates and other FAR-LEFT billionaires and foundations.
Very interesting.
A mere two posts up was one persons answer to your question and it was posted over 6 hours before you claimed no one.
Open your eyes!
If it doesn’t name names, it’s apparently “not detailed enough.” Never mind all the foreign funding received by many groups that claim to be concerned about the environment
Let’s now get a tally on the policy damages based on RCP 8.5 for class action suits, reparations, and the bills laid at the feet of Dems and their ilk in Europe, UK, and Australia.
Add California, Washington, and New York to the list. RCP 8.5 lead to the formation of the RGGI and the CESA. These organizations have the in the cost of electricity in the member states.
Can lawfare survive the fall of 8.5?
(AND 7.0?!)
I think the psychological damage to younger generations is enormous.
Think about the person who decides not to have children because they have been led to believe the world is coming to an end because of CO2.
My 3 kids are in that group.
They have since passed the childbearing age, so no grandchildren for me to spoil.
Trump, like WUWT, cannot understand a simple fact. A scenario is not a projection, nor a prediction. Else why would we have four of them? The scenarios represented what cannot be predicted – future human decisions. At any point in time, CMIP calculates for the various scenarios which cover the range of what seems possible at the time, from bad to good. That is all you can do.
And of course over time, we find out what scenario really happened, and evaluate the conditional predictions accordingly. And as we find out what happened, the range of future scenarios narrows. We now have a partial history of those human decisions. They get baked in. We could have followed Scenario 8.5, as seen from 2013, but we now know that we didn’t. Time for new scenarios with this new knowledge, not available before.
And there will still always be good scenarios and bad scenarios.
There were four of them so countless alarmist papers could be published based upon the LEAST likely scenario.
That way people with very little scientific background and zero knowledge of the four scenarios could be easily manipulated by facile propaganda.
Trump understands that. All of the real skeptical scientists at WUWT understand that.
Do you understand that?
“Trump understands that”. Is this the same clown who thinks he reduced pharmacy costs by 600%. Jesus, Mary and Joseph please give me strength.
And yet it was democrats that came up with the unaffordable care act. Jesus, Mary and Joseph please give democrats the strength to get their head out of their ass.
Trump is president of the world’s most powerful nation — financial and military. Who are you?
Nepo baby is working hard to change that.
Sorry, I’m wrong. Guy never worked hard a single day in his life.
You are living in Bizzarro World where everything is just the opposite of the Real World.
Ah, the kitten has chosen to toss catnip rather than chase it.
Trump became a billionaire by not working hard?
It really is amazing how hatred of success blinds your average socialist.
Too good to pass up.
Once again, it really is amazing how hatred of success blinds socialists.
“you people work just like the mob”
They are not called the “climate mafia” for nothing !
“thieving, lying, cheating psychopaths. “
Worked for the previous administration.
Heeding Charles Rotter w.r.t. you. Bu bye…
All I did was reflect your comment back at you. ! 😉
Deflecting from the topic?
Pure sophistry.
Colleagues, again, please, please, please stop feeding the trolls.
The problem is not that there may be “good and bad scenarios”. The problem is that human socio-economic decisions have very marginal effects on global temperatures (unless men ever start a global thermonuclear war that may, in principle, result in measurable temporary global climate disruptions). Therefore all these exercises (IPCC scenarios) add zero value to the policy planning at best, but, in fact, they rather confuse policy makers.
With all due respect, please stop chasing down mice while the elephant in the room is that global temperatures are determined by extremely complex natural processes that we know very little about.
“Time for new scenarios with this new knowledge, not available before”
Whitewashing scientific fraud is what you are doing. RCP 8.5 NEVER was a plausible scenario but it was treated as the business as usual case and dominated peer reviewed studies. Anyone with an ounce of common sense had the knowledge it was being used to control people through fear into believing nonsense.
“RCP 8.5 NEVER was a plausible scenario “
How do youknow?
Here, from Nature is a graph of CO2 emissions and scenario values. Up to about 2013 (CMIP 5) emissions were actually running faster than 8.5. There were plans to reduce them, and they did, but it wasn’t a sure thing. The alternative had to be calculated.
Also, Current atmospheric warming has absolutely NOTHING to do with CO2.
It is all solar / cloud / albedo induced.
Oh dear, censored again..
Nick needs to know the truth…. that scenarios ARE NOT REAL.
They are baseless FANTASIES
“RCP 8.5 NEVER was a plausible scenario “
“How do youknow?”
Because I read the first study published that showed there aren’t enough provable fossil fuel reserves to reach that level of emissions about 20 years ago. The article mentioned that fact also. Why are you ignoring it?
“Nature” is a captured journal pushing propaganda.
“ I read the first study published”
Which one? The article just links to a long series of Heartland rants.
Reading comprehension is in the basement.
Nick,
The discussion accepts that extreme scenarios are a tool for modellers.
The emphasis in the discussion is on the deliberate misrepresentation of this impossible scenario as possible, for example by falsely naming it ‘business as usual’.
Do you agree that economic damage has been caused on national scales by treatment by some of RCP 8.5 as possible or likely when it was not either?
Geoff S
Geoff
“The emphasis in the discussion is on the deliberate misrepresentation of this impossible scenario”
No, it isn’t. The headline says it is
“About UN Retreating from Extremist Climate Models”which is all kinds of nonsense. Firdtly it isn’t Climate Models. The models work with scenarios from 8.5 down to 2.6. That is a choice. And the choice is made by CMIP, not the UN. Much nonsense has been written about 8.5 being cancelled, etc. All that has happened is that CMIP 7 has, as with each round, a new set of scenarios, which take into account what has happened since the last lot. And what happened to 8.5 wa sthat evidence accumulated that it wasn’t being followed. Effective action had been taken to reduce emissions. That wasn’t a certainty in 2013 etc. RCP8.5 was certainly possible. Whether you think it is likely is up to the users of model results.
Effective action had been taken to reduce emissions.
And that didn’t work in any way at all.
CO2 just kept going up and up at the same rate.
Nick, I know you’re not that gullible.
So why do you repeat this bullshit at a forum that is more than well informed about climate, weather and energy?
“I bang my head against the wall, cuz I would rather feel pain than nothing at all.”
“CO2 just kept going up and up at the same rate.”
Actually, CO2 value is curving upwards, so the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 is increasing.
All the anti-CO2 nonsense has done absolutely nothing to kerb global CO2..
Sure, some countries have reduced their emissions, but mostly by moving manufacturing to countries that still produce massive amounts of plant food CO2.
ALL the scenarios were baseless, NONSENSE FANTASIES from the start, anyway, because they were based on the anti-fact of CO2 causing warming.
“CO2 just kept going up and up at the same rate.”
No, it didn’t. I showed the graph. The black curve with dots:
They were rising until about 2010, faster than RCP8.5. Then the rise slowed, and levelled off.
You say emissions have slowed, but the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere keeps growing at an increasing rate.
No indication the slowing in emissions has had any effect whatsoever.
Still going to be a very long time before it reaches optimum level for plant growth.. but we must keep trying.
The rate of increase has reduced. That’s the exact reason why RCP8.5 was retired.
This isn’t that hard to comprehend, for most.
“The rate of increase has reduced.”
Look at the graph above. Your comment is blatantly WRONG !!
The upward curve is totally un-interrupted. !
The rate of increase projected by RCP 8.5 was preposterous fiction. That is why it was retired and is what you refuse to comprehend.
So why does your black dot curve not show up in the Mouna Loa data curve? Are you attempting to confuse fossile fuel carbon reductions with actual atmospheric CO2? The easiest person to fool is yourself.
So called fossile fuel carbon reductions.
Ah. The Goebbels’ method.
2024 was a GREAT year for plant food ! 🙂
On the other hand, these actions to reduce emissions have not resulted in any reduction in emissions. No matter how many lies are told about them.
For example, Nick repeatedly tries to claim that every MWh produced by wind/solar is one MWh that is not produced by fossil fuels.
The reality is that Nick knows nothing about power generation, and doesn’t want to.
He completely ignores the fact that throttled back fossil fuel plants are less efficient so have to burn more fuel.
He completely ignores the fact that fossil fuel plants have to be kept on warm to hot standby (burning fuel but producing now power) waiting for the inevitable drop out by wind/solar.
Scenarios, aka use cases, are always part of the models.
the application of normal human intelligence judging that this model was not using plausible guesses, that is how we KNOW it was absurd.
So the modellers failed to take “time” into consideration on their calculations? Well I guess they got their maths attributes from a prestigious college/university. And it only took 13 years to correct. 😉
There is no time like the present. In fact, it’s all we have. At the start of each CMIP cycle, using present knowledge, they have to develop scenarios for the future. They have just done it for CMIP 7.
So after 2013 they didn’t have any insight of knowledge when the path diverged. Hopeless.
The scenarios are set in advance.
And being scenarios they can be adjusted. Why didn’t they adjust? No clues?
No, they can’t. The scenarios are set and then CMIP contributors compute results based on them. That takes years, and if the scenarios are changed, they have to start again.
That is a simple excuse for not doing science. When a hypothesis is tested and fails, it is time to start over. You don’t wait for a politician to tell you it is time to change.
What you are proposing is the politics controls what science does and when. That leads to disaster as the world is beginning to see.
Why are you refusing to admit that the world used 8.5 to justify spending trillions of dollars.
That’s pretty much what Nick just said, isn’t it?
So you agree. The hypothesis (conjecture supported by computer models) that CO2 has failed, we should start over again, from scratch.
Perhaps this new effort will not assume a conclusion (CO2 is not the “control knob”) and do some real science.
That is a fact.
But missing is the long list of assumptions played into those use cases.
This is about the time when errors in old publications become obvious.
In science old wrong statements would be corrected or withdrawn!
CMIP6 made very clear that all older models are riddled with artifacts from the lower resolution and flawed physics. Their confidence intervals must be adapted to reflect that new knowledge.
The scenarios are merely software use cases.
The models and the projections generated are bogus.
8.5 is laced with assumptions so it is garbage in, garbage out and it is not even considering the garbage software.
they have to develop scenarios for the future
They are not projections or predictions but they forecast the future.
Got it.
Grimm Bros type of stuff !!
Three interesting words:
Predictions – oh, no, the Climate Change alarmists have not allowed that word to be used for a decade or 2
Projections – the word of choice for a long time, until today
Forecasts – now the new word of choice.
Sort of like Global Warming / Anthropogenic Global Warming / Catastrophic Global Warming / Climate Change, Catastrophic Climate Change / Global Weirding / Oceans are boiling …
When the word being used to describe the product becomes hard to justify, why, just change the words. Standard Operating Procedure
“Crisis” and “Emergency” are used interchangeably too.
Those thesaurus tools on the writing apps must get a feverish workout in news room and climate “science” laboratories.
(sheesh, even I can get in on these wordplays –
how about a “feverish” climate?)
Feverish? Be still my racing heart! 🙂
From Wiki: “The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) began to use these four pathways for climate modeling and research in 2014.”
So the “divergence” took place BEFORE they started using RCP8.5 in climate modeling.
They knew it was horseshit from day 1 but wanted to push propaganda.
Which has nothing to do with the issue of what the output of the models showed when using those projections. You are doing the same old “look over there” distraction to obfuscate the real issue. The 8.5 scenario was based on what was needed to create an unrealistic future possibility. Anyway you cut it, it was fraudulently used to create a fear of the future in order to justify massive spending for wind and solar.
Exactly right! The main problem is that the projected warming likely does not match reality!
Massive spending has to include the models, computer time, and hackers that ran them, not to mention the fees paid to get peer reviewed publication.
It’s up to each individual scientist to decide how far to stretch their integrity.
Their forcing from the CO2 feedback seems too high (not shown on the graph)
Do not look now, bu5t your integrity just fell kerspot.
Pray tell, was that before or after hindcasting?
Don’t forget tuning the models.
If he “tunes” his butt, be sure to avert your eyes. 😉
Easy, because it postulated emission levels that were clearly impossible.
Utterly useless. Including carbon dioxide as a driver must be excluded.
A whole new conceptual framework is called for and is beyond the remit of the IPCC who were paid to prove that human use of fossil fuels was to blame for observed mild warming by competent temperature records done outside all heat-island influences.
“Trump, like WUWT, cannot understand a simple fact. A scenario is not a projection, nor a prediction.”
But it was USED as a prediction and a projection !
And you KNOW it was !
Scenarios are just MAKE-BELIEVE FANTASIES. Not science.
This ^
we don’t have 59 different versions of E=MC^2
OK, E=MC². So predict E.
You can’t, because you don’t know M. That comes from a scenario.
OK, E=MC². So predict E.
You just displayed your inability to recognize science. “M” is not a scenario! “M” is a physical phenomenon that is part of a functional relationship that maps variables to each other.
There is one and only one output for every input. That was verified when the first nuclear explosion occurred.
The big question remains for you and other modelers. Why continue producing model runs using 8.5 years ago when it became obvious that it was unreasonable? Justifying spending money on computer time and programmers time apparently was not an issue, so just keep on keeping on so grants could be obtained. That appears to be the only reason.
Golf clap for you.
““M” is not a scenario! “
I didn’t say it was. I said it came from a scenario. You are thinking of building a hydrogen bomb, or a reactor, or something. That is where the M comes from, and it is a scenario. It isn’t a prediction that you will build a bomb.
A “scenario” is an imaginary fantasy.
Pure supposition and guesswork based on zero science.
You really haven’t studied physical science in depth have you.
E, M, and C are physically existing phenomenon that are mapped by a functional relationship. If I know the mass and the energy, I can tell you exactly what the speed of light is. If I know the speed of light and the energy, I can tell you exactly what mass created it.
The mapping is not determined from “scenarios”, the variable values are established from measurement. A measurement is NOT a scenario!
A mapping of variables in a physical functional relationship means specifying exactly which physical quantity depends on which. In physics and measurement theory, a functional relationship is a model that maps one or more input quantities (X1, X2, …) to an output quantity (Y):
Y = f(X1, X2, …, X_n).
This mapping is the backbone of physical theory, dimensional analysis, and metrology. It tells you what varies with what, how, and under what assumptions.
Leftists love their many genders. !! 🙂
You are including me in that statement, “cannot understand a simple fact”?
That is equivalent to racial profiling.
We know the scenarios for what they are and how they were USED is a major part of the definition.
The RCP 8.5 caused British Columbia to panic and levy a tax on fossil fuels of $10 per tonne of CO2 equivalent in 2009 because the government was led to believe by the corrupt IPCC and the unscrupulous collaborating scientists that the emission of CO2 would case dangerous global warming. By 2024 the tax had increased to $80 per tonne of CO2 equivalent. The tax had no effect on weather and climate as far as I can tell.
The tax was cancelled on Jan 1 2025. The federal government will levy on July 1 an industrial carbon tax that will rise to $130 per tonne by 2030. This tax will increase cost of fossil fuels and food. The heavy industries and the Oil Sands Alliance are fighting this tax.
They didn’t really believe the doomsday scenario….they believed in it’s ability to raise tax revenue for them….tax revenue that was much easier than normal to hide what they were spending it on…if power over people is an aphrodisiac to a politician, then tax money you can spend with little oversight is crack cocaine.
It was obvious from day one that there wasn’t enough fossil fuels on the planet to bring RCP8.5 to pass. Only those who knew they were generating pure fiction ever used it.
You might be right.
But this conflicts with the fundamental WUWT tenet that we petroleum engineers and geoscientists have an endless supply of MacGyvers to excrete, in order to exploit a limited resource that will only refill over lots of geologic time. Even now, most oil and gas is being produced via (non ACC) regulatory environmental, safety, health Ben Dovers, and/or in kleptocratic conflict areas. IOW, our current fossil fuel streams are effectively “subsidized” by the suffering of those least able to resist it’s filthy production practices and subsequent robbery, with costs orders of magnitude higher than the relatively tiny, fleeting green start up helps now in place.
Likely response: Go with SMR’s. Line forms behind me. Change US law w.r.t. reprocessing. Find a long term home for the waste left over down the line (sorry dreamers, there will be some). Hammer down on the aforementioned fossil fuel give aways that temporarily delay Hubbert’s curve. Then, let the market sort out the when/where/how much of future energy mixes, at less cost to those birth lottery losers who are too poor and/or too poorly located to avoid their current screwing.
and your post highlights why LSD, marijuana and other substances need more regulation too
Teetotaler, save for the weekend backyard beer, with bbq. Please expand. What is not the fact, for example?
Well, bob, your”not the fact” is in your opening lie about WUWT tenets. Maybe you can cite to some official WUWT tenet from the tenet list on the right?? Oh, you imagined that, too?
Ever heard the term “self-loathing oil producer”?
“Well, bob, your”not the fact” is in your opening lie about WUWT tenets”
Search for virtually any wishful thinking column by years long WUWT poster David Middleton. And his Greek Chorus of MeToo’ers.
Nope, hardly “self loathing” I loved the life, and felt good about producing the fossil fuels. Right up until I went international and got to see the FSU oilfield trash cans for myself. Bugged out of those, and after a more international work in less filthy areas, switched to managing completions for the biggest east coast gas producer – only to find similarly filthy conditions in whole West Virginia counties. After less than a month I left my company vehicle in a Pittsburgh parking garage, e mailed in my resignation, and drove home. Later, did some Boston Consulting Group work in Riyadh, but am happily ex oilfield trash ever after.
each to their own, BoB
Mr. bob: Another lie, I read Middleton’s articles, never saw “WUWT” and “tenet” used together. Have you a sample, or you just shootin’ blanks?
In the hypocrite column, bob is also big. Notice he was so disgusted, he drove (ice vehicle??) to a garage, then drove home (more gas burned?? Heavens), then flew on plane to Riyadh, continues to use oil even after witnessing all that environmental filth first-hand. Doesn’t care one bit that he’s gonna run out, no change in behavior, yet he does not see it in the mirror. Hypocrite.
Blobbo is angry because he got sacked for incompetence. !
One person’s opinion dost not a tenet make.
Funny how you decided to bring the woman’s movement into the conversation.
Hydrocarbons and coal get no handouts. What they get is normal business tax deductions available in every industry and commercial sector.
Poor Bob, he knows he can’t win an honest argument so once again he has to rely on lying about what others have said.
You have been won’t to claim that the know, recoverable reserves are all that are left. We merely point out to you that technology continues to advance which means that there are a lot more recoverable reserves out there than you want to believe.
Well, if there are a lot more hydrocarbons out there, then RCP 8.5 may be right?
There is no WUWT tenet that oil, gas, and coal are infinite resources.
It has been stated more than enough times that all planetary mineral resources are finite and conservation is good. Recycling also is good.
The point made time and time again is that we will not run out tomorrow, so an emergency is not upon us. Human ingenuity, if allowed, will make discoveries and innovations and likely some of those will reduce the need for carbon fuels in thermal steam turbine generators to produce electricity and provide the myriad of other energy needs.
The key to all of this is available, reliable, affordable energy.
Any other approach dooms human civilization and the people to slavery or, at best, subsistence survival.
What matters is what gets into people’s heads (including, and especially the youngest and most impressionable), through relentless catastrophic headlines and institutional complacency toward this constant media opportunism. The IPCC scientists did not speak up to set the record straight and clearly redefine, for everyone, the role of RCP8.5. The double standard is convenient: one is a scientist in the morning, working on hypotheses and scenarios, and then, in the afternoon, once the lab coat is off and the laboratory door closed, all nuance and the subtlety required for proper scientific communication are forgotten, and the imminence of disastrous events is proclaimed during prime-time broadcasts. Perhaps these researchers managed to convince themselves that this duplicity served a noble cause. It is all too easy to clarify matters precisely when the double standard becomes untenable.
This could fall within the realm of mental abuse, or “gaslighting.” Making a perfectly rational person appear crazy and confused, to the point that they begin to doubt themselves. The seriousness of this process, as applied to the statements of skeptics regarding the late withdrawal of RCP8.5, constitutes, on the part of the orthodoxy, an avoidance of reality. Evidence of this can be seen in the eco-anxiety that has spread among countless young people, and in the ostracism of anyone questioning the “established truth” (those crude, permanent, and never-corrected media simplifications that transform an exploratory scenario into an unquestionable and apocalyptic truth), labeling them “denialists” by drawing a grotesque parallel between scientific skepticism and the Holocaust.
“Now comes the next problem: There are hundreds if not thousands of studies in journals spanning biology, medicine, atmospheric science, and others, that used RCP 8.5 as their high end and even business-as-usual emissions scenario….”
I can only vouch for marine biology with a fair amount of ship time. Commonly read de facto, ad hoc, most common “warming ocean,”with only IPCC reference, even otherwise with proper scholarship. Not new, Peters, R. H. 1991. A Critique for Ecology. Cambridge Univ. Press. 366pp, about “ad hockery,” in ecology and evolution. Whole Gulf of Mexico will become tropical by the end of the century in Day, J. W., Jr., C. A. S. Hall, W. M. Kemp, and A. Yáñez-Arancibia.1989 (2nd Ed. 2013). Estuarine Ecology. Wiley-Interscience. NY., 558pp.
I predict pigs will fly. Let’s see how that works out.
Mr. Aqua: You want to see how it works out?? What we learn in this string is that Mr. Stokes doesn’t want to see how IPCC scenarios work out, and he’s determined that it NOT be updated until the scare journos are completely exhausted. Just couldn’t be updated, huh? CliSci seems to rely on NOT being updated!
Simple. We invent a pig launcher. 😉
“And there will still always be good scenarios and bad scenarios.”
And there will also be those that know the bad scenarios are bad … not fit for anything but hype; and they will publicly stand by the “bad scenarios” right up until the bad scenarios do more harm than good for the hype narrative.
And there will be those that deflect from their lies, by saying bad scenarios are simply part of the study range.
(And no, we could not have followed Scenario 8.5, as seen from 2013; and we knew that. There is a little irony in the ‘Exxon Knew’ campaign … “Everyone Knew” that 8.5 was simply hype.)
Now this post clearly discloses you and you basic ignorance, I see that your level of comprehension is more limited than could be guessed. You fail to understand what is meant by MODEL and obviously have not read the disclosure which came with the model in question. They described what they were doing.
Others used it ignorantly or maliciously, misrepresenting it as a valid prediction.
Just common sense Nick. But we know how that goes down here.
Vis the reaction to me.
You are both climate lunatics, that, we agree on.
Yep, we know how you love junk science and measurements.
Its a Met Office thing !!
A distinction without a difference. That your own spaghetti graph(s) goes beyond the current year into the future demonstrates how vapid this distinction really is.
And the bitter truth is, the huge climate models have no predictive, projection, or scenario abilities at all, becoming straight-line extrapolations of CO2 after just a handful of iterations.
And who is “we”? You and the Quenn?
Strange that over 2600 papers based on RCP 8.5 have been published and a huge ‘climate intelligence industry’ involving companies like Swiss Re and Mckinsey and many others have made billions on the back of it but no ‘climate scientist’ except Roger Pielke called it out. Meanwhile you and your ilk kept your mouth firmly shut and did nothing. And you are still defending the indefensible.
You know nothing about modelling and simulation based on your post.
You apparently also believe “hind casting” calibrates the model. It does not. It is merely curve fitting.
Per IPCC, those scenarios do projections translated to predictions.
And averaging 30+ models?
But, the science is and was settled, going back decades. So your conditional evaluations did not happen.
These scenarios are rife with assumptions, none of which can be validated by the past.
Get off it.
You are dead wrong, but you will never admit it.
And hindcasting to temperature data this is as much a fantasy construct as the models themself..
… garbage piled upon garbage.. at every step.
Mr Stokes,
In the Catastrophic Climate Change context:
Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) are climate change scenarios to project future greenhouse gas concentrations. [Wikipedia]
They are used to PROJECT greenhouse gas concentrations, world population, etc. Therefore, they are, most assuredly, projections.
And even in 2013, it was clear that RPC 8.5 was impossible – the world didn’t then, and doesn’t now, have sufficient coal to meet the CO2-from-coal projection. It isn’t wrong now, it was always wrong. Just made up to get the public’s attention.
“Therefore, they are, most assuredly, projections.”
You have this basic, elementary problem. RCP8.5 and RCP2.6 are equally scenarios. So what is projected?
Scenarios are used to project. That is IPCC’s term for a conditional prediction. If GHGs follow 8.5 you get one thing. If they follow 2.6, you get something different.
“If GHGs follow 8.5 you get one thing. If they follow 2.6, you get something different.”
Only in those models, which do not simulate reality.
“ Time for new scenarios with this new knowledge, not available before.”
I thought CAGW/Climate Change/etc. was all “settled science”?
Many policies were based on RCP 8.5 (along with many “peer reviewed” papers).
Why would “new knowledge” change anything if “the science was settled”?
Perhaps it never was? There was “The Cause” behind it?
— “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” — Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank, consultants to the United Nations.
— “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” – Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports.
— “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, president of the UN Foundation.
— “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony. … climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
— “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” – Professor Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research.
— “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” – Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University.
— “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” – Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace.
But, just as they could no longer pretend Biden was “sharp as a tac” after the debate, they could no longer hide that it was never about “The Climate”.
The fraud they were pushing needs to be fully exposed to the general public so people won’t be so easily duped by propaganda. False narratives underlie all of it so training is needed so people can recognize lies that are presented as unquestionable facts.
That post is not worded the way I would word it, but then again nobody voted for me to be president either. With words and actions like this, even if the next US president is a ‘D’, I don’t see how anyone call it science instead of politics.
Can climate doomers hide for 3 more years on current funding level? There were a lot of gold bars to blow on Starbucks and DoorDash.
OrangemanBad said mean words! Oh, the humanity!
Funny how those who have spent the last few decades calling anyone who disagrees with them a Nazi and worse, get their panties in a wad when someone dares to insult them.
Story tip!
In The Guardian today…
Climate crisis is accelerating antibiotic resistance across world, study says
Experts say climate change linked to 10% rise in salmonella antibiotic resistance genes between 1940 and 2023
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/may/26/climate-crisis-accelerating-antibiotic-resistance-across-world-salmonella-study
The study is based on GHG emissions and IPCC RCP8.5
Association of climate change with the spread of antimicrobial resistance genes in Salmonella: a longitudinal ecological and modelling study
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) emerges primarily through antibiotic exposure and the resulting selection pressure, but climate change is likely to accelerate the dissemination of AMR, particularly for zoonotic diseases, such as those caused by Salmonella.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(26)00018-5/fulltext
“between 1940 and 2023″
Data from all over the globe at “reasonable” surface stations shows the temperature around 1940 to be similar to the first two decades of this century…
… so as always, the Guardian article is totally BOGUS.
2nd link… “modelling study ………. is likely to”…. YAWN !!!!!
Yes, it’s not any hotter today than it was then.
Antibiotics were not affected then or now.
Salmonella is food poison.
How many wash hands with antibacterial soap?
Daily does of antibiotics and guess what happens?
Antibiotic resistant strains.
Only in climate science does correlation prove causation.
But they are experts, so …
RCP8.5 was fodder for Al Gore and the political left. Don’t expect them to readily capitulate. When, if ever, do politicians admit that they were wrong about anything.
He didn’t have to say Dumocrats. Would have been better if he avoided the pejorative.
Part of his flair: keep the numbskulls guessing
Part of his charm. But we love Trump for his POLICIES
Which ones?
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/100-days-of-the-trump-administrations-foreign-policy-global-chaos-american-weakness-and-human-suffering/
The left and TDS democrats love saying things like “America is ‘weaker’ on the world stage”, or “we are weaker now because…”, with no actual evidence to back any of it up, other than maybe someone in Europe complains even more about us and President Trump than they already do. Trump has absolutely strengthened our position in the Western Hemisphere while simultaneously weakening our adversaries.
Don’t expect Democrats to give Trump credit for anything.
Their sole focus is in tearing down and demonizing their political opposition starting with the opposition’s leader.
It’s all about political power and control for them. Everything else is secondary including the truth.
I am getting tired of typing all the good, but there is soooooo much to be thankful for as an American. Our President may not sound presidential, at times, but you can’t argue with his policies.
We can argue policies all day. Our arguments do not make the policies good or bad.
I am not 100% onboard with every single policy, but then I have not agreed 100% to the policies of any president as far back as Eisenhower.
Yes. Trump does not sound presidential. I wish at times he would take a clue from Roosevelt and have a fire side chat rather than continuing is campaign style rhetoric.
And yet another piece of catnip (aka deflection).
“The Center for American Progress is an independent nonpartisan policy institute that is dedicated to improving the lives of all Americans through bold, progressive ideas, as well as strong leadership and concerted action. Our aim is not just to change the conversation, but to change the country.”
Who gave them the right to decide for me how the country is changed?
They are actually a FAR-LEFT anti-progress non-thinktank which influenced much of the horrific Obama and Otto-pen years with garbage policies.
They were responsible for many of the degenerate “wrongs” that Trump has been trying to fix.
One of its major individual donors is George Soros, along with many other far-left foundations such as Goldman Sachs, Gates etc etc.
I cut and pasted that quote from the CAP website. I believe you understood that.
The selected phrases were to emphasize what you posted: FAR-LEFT.
I did not vote for them. Neither did any registered US citizen (voter).
So HOW DARE THEY decide for me how the country is changed!
Centre for Non-American Far-leftists. !!…. Ho-hum
A low end opinion piece written by an American hating Democrat voter.
And you fall for it. !
He does love his catnip. 🙂
I, for one, don’t love Trump’s policies. His tariffs have allowed my U.S. competitors to raise their prices 35% to be “competitive” with my prices plus tariffs…it is US consumers who pay the increased cost….plus caused me to have to lay off many people who worked for me for many years.
We agree to disagree, but overall Trump’s policies have been fantastic for Americans
Ok. You do not love tariffs.
What other policies? You only named one.
Selling Trump Bibles would be another example, Dogecoin another, the whole “Make America’s rich people greedy Beyond Belief” meme he seems to espouse, and the “you’re fired” reality TV methodology he treats his people to.
Just to name a few…
You can’t get past that?
you want Obama back?
Those you listed are not policies.
Another description would be “Demoncrats”.
Some are Dumocrats and some are Demoncrats. None of them are good for the United States.
I prefer to drop the ‘c’. Demonrats.
Very nice. Just as important and maybe more important is the choice to communicate in terms the average guy doesn’t understand. RCP8.5, the 8.5 refers to watts per meter squared, an absolutely useless measure to the vast majority of us. If it must be used then there should be an absolutely clear explanation how w/ms relates to degrees Fahrenheit or degrees Celsius. One other thing is that we need a definition of heat and temperature more relatable to the average guy rather than the degree of motion in a molecule. What the hell does that even mean to the average guy, how can they relate to that?
Watts per square meter (W/m^2) is a measure of radiative energy, it has no fixed relation to thermometer readings. When used in reference to incoming energy to the Earth’s surface, it varies widely in intensity from the Tropics to the poles, and is notably absent at night. This incoming energy interacts with the atmosphere to cause local changes in the various forms of atmospheric energy including pressure, potential (gravity), kinetic (velocity), electric (lightning), and latent (evaporation/condensation)– none of which can be measured by a thermometer– as well as the internal (heat) energy which seems to fascinate our Climate-Crisis thermometer readers. All the “average guy” needs to comprehend is that the water cycle alone (evaporation/precipitation) absorbs and transports orders of magnitude more of the sun’s energy on a daily basis than CO2 increases can affect in a decade, much to the thermometer-readers’ dismay!
Forgot to add that clouds, part of the water cycle, can reflect roughly a third of the W/m^2 from the sun in a process that is also not measurable with a thermometer! “When your only tool is a thermometer…” you are ill equipped to pontificate on anything related to local climates!
W/m^2 is not a measure of energy. It is power density. Energy is W-s or J.
That aside, the rest of your post was enjoyable.
Oh, try explaining enthalpy.
Or entropy. 🙂
The damage is done and irreversible. LLM/AI models have been trained on many tens of thousands (or more) of peer reviewed RCP 8.5 publications. There is no removing the poison from the cocktail.
Many people know about the crime of shouting FIRE in a theatre.
RCP8.5 is the same crime, on a massively larger scale, but it is not yet being treated as a crime. Why the delay?
It is childs’ play to name dozens of the main offenders who have stolen a better national economic future from me and my family. They must be identified and interrogated following customary application of the law. If a case is found, they must face the legal process and be punished when found guilty.
Now in my 80s, I bitterly resent my journey through life that was so optimistic 40 years ago, but in the last 20 years has been in a down slide leading to national poverty. This has not been accidental. It was planned and managed by evil people who must be contained. The damage is huge and horrible, but reversible. Geoff S
I have some beer.
We can pop a few and commiserate.
Thanks and congratulations to all you above principals of truth for holding to your righteous principles.
Who was it, from the UN Environmental Agency, back in the mid-70s, that said in response to CO2 possibly leading to a mini ice age that (words to this effect) we do not know if CO2 is the cause, but it is something that can be quantified and taxed.
Let us look back on history.
The UN Environment Programme was tasked to study the climate, both natural and anthropogenic.
Then the IPCC was formed. One of the first reports (second assessment, 1995) by the scientists stated that there was no human signal in the data as was stated in earlier (1990, 1992) reports. I forget who, but that statement was rewritten to claim a clear human signal. There was great outcry and many of the best and brightest quit.
The models were then changed to calculate temperature rise with increasing CO2 concentrations.
Kyota Accord, 1997, co-authored by Al Gore.
Al Gore was VP from 1993-2001.
In that same time frame he established an investment company that founded the Chicago Exchange for carbon credit buying and selling. He also tried to push through legislation for cap and trade. The legislation failed, so did the Chicago Exchange. The investment firm netted a couple of tens of millions of dollars.
An Inconvenient Truth was released in 2006.
Al Gore is now worth about $12 billion.
Left-Wing Newspaper Claims ICE Deportations Worsen ‘Global Warming‘
I wonder how much those fires started by protesters contribute to Global Warming.