Caught pushing an apocalyptic scenario they knew couldn’t occur, climate scientists are now claiming their policies prevented it.
A clique of stealth activists, including the former head of the National Academies of Science, claimed a high-emissions future was possible long after it had been falsified.
Climate policies saved the world from catastrophic warming, say leading climate scientists. On September 1, a consortium that produces analyses for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released new scenarios. They say the new worst-case scenario is just 3.3 degrees Celsius of warming by 2100 over pre-industrial temperatures. That’s down from 4.6 to 4.9 degrees of the last three generations of climate scenarios used by the IPCC. “Our business-as-usual projection of 3C of warming – rather than 4 or 5C – is a testament to the progress in global decarbonization over the last few decades,” wrote climate scientists Zeke Hausfather, Glen Peters, and Piers Forster back in May.
Others agreed. Chris Smith, a modeler at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis who helped build the new scenarios, told Carbon Brief that “back in 2010, RCP8.5 wasn’t an implausible future, we’ve now made it an implausible future.” Gavin Schmidt, the longtime director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, argued that scenarios shifted “in light of what we (as a society) are doing,” so that “we have already done things and so ‘business’ is no longer ‘usual.’” Robert Vautard, cochair of the IPCC working group on physical science, said the old high scenarios “assumed no climate policies,” while “there ARE now many climate policies in many countries, developed in particular with the Paris Agreement signed in 2016.”
But the high emissions scenarios were never plausible.
– Michael Shellenberger (£)
Everything that the climate alarmists say is a lie.
“Climate policies saved the world from catastrophic warming.”
Here is a post about just how ineffectual those policies have been.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2026/08/24/cops-are-not-much-cop/
Those climate policies achieved nothing but the catastrophic warming didn’t happen anyway, how could that possibly happen?
Could it be that the original hypothesis that CO2 had a massive effect on the climate was false? Being generous we could concede that maybe forty years ago it wasn’t known to be false, but now there is no doubt whatsoever. Anyone still claiming that it is true is a liar.
Monday: “The world will end on Friday unless you all give me a dollar.”
– – – (profit)
Saturday: “Yay, it worked! The world still exists!
The People’s Republic of China has not reduced Carbon Dioxide emissions – it has massively increased them, so have some other Asian powers.
So the international agreements were ineffectual – if their aim was to reduce Carbon Dioxide emissions, but that was NOT the real aim.
We know from the comments of various people as far back as the 1992 Rio Conference (for example the former Prime Minister of Norway) that their objective was not really anything to do with “climate” – that their objective was two fold….
To establish world “governance” (the late David Rockefeller was one of many who strongly supported this), and to “rebalance” the world – the old leftist establishment objective of Global “Social Justice” by undermining Western nations and promoting “developing nations” – such as the People’s Republic of China – which has a political and economic system similar to National Socialist Germany, but is ten times the size – and is now the number one manufacturing power on Earth.
Thank you Global Establishment Elite – you have handed us all over to the vicious tyranny that is the PRC.
And the GEE have learned nothing – for example Mark Carney, a faithful servant of the “International Community” and its “Agenda 2030” (he is also Prime Minister of Canada – although he could not give a damn about the place), is still siding with the tyranny that is the People’s Republic of China – against the United States.
“Elbows Up Ah” is the most moronic slogan since “Build Back Better”.
I finally understood what a dreadful person Prime Minister Johnson was (confession – I voted for him as leader, but the alternative was Jeremy Hunt – a person who loves increasing taxation, and is connected to the PRC regime – it is NOT that his wife is Chinese, the point is that the lady is connected to the regime, and that Mr Hunt pretended that he did not know this – was a massive Red Flag, no pun intended) – was when Mr Johnson said “our slogan – Build Back Better”.
Mr Johnson said “our slogan Build Back Better” and kept going on about it as “our slogan” as Conservatives – it was handed down by the International Community, as were all the policies (including “rewilding”) yet the dreadful man pretended he had thought of these policies himself.
Mr Johnson was going on about this only the other day – in an article in the Daily Mail, where he claimed that Texas was successful because of wind tubines and solar cells (the despicable Economist magazine has made the same false claim).
Many people died in Texas when winter storms covered the solar cells and knocked out the wind turbines. Mr Johnson knows that – but he just beat the “renewable” drum anyway.
He also knew that the Covid “Lockdowns” were useless, indeed Counter Productive, but he went along with these international orders as well.
And he went along with HS2 (a wildly expensive – and pointless, railway project) – even though he had written many times (correctly) about how stupid the project was – he obeyed instructions, even when he knew (he knew) the instructions were terrible – and he did it again and again.
The only living Prime Minister of the United Kingdom I would like to meet is Liz Truss (I never have) – like Prime Minister Gladstone the lady failed (John Morley, friend and biographer of Gladstone, pointed out that the great goal of Gladstone was to abolish Income Tax – and he lived to see it increased and made “Progressive”) – but like Gladstone the lady TRIED to roll back the state.
To have fought and lost is better, vastly better, than not to have fought at all.
Every other Prime Minister (apart from Liz Truss) since Margaret Thatcher was betrayed in 1990, just obeyed the “advice” (orders) of the establishment.
The only Prime Ministers, in my life time, who tried to resist were Margaret Thatcher and Liz Truss.
I totally understand why these people need to cover their butt, and say what they need to keep the money rolling it, but it sure as hell isn’t science.
This graph shows global carbon emissions, or at least what the public data shows, which of course is utterly untrustworthy. Nonetheless it is clear that global carbon emissions are exponentially rising still, excepting for a small glitch during covid, and there is not a scrap of evidence that all their machinations, threats and doomsday scenarios made one iota of a difference. When the global warming panic took hold in the 1980s global carbon emissions were about half of what they are today — so their claim that their ideas worked is utterly contradicted by the evidence, which is a polite way of saying that they are utter, self serving bullshit.
And yet the UK continues down a path to NetZero that will destroy the country and impoverish their people.
It took me three seconds to look this up in a browser. I mean how stupid do these people think we are?
The hallmark, in fact the purpose, of science is to make correct predictions about the future: I let go of this brick and it will fall down not up, I run electricity through this water and it will produce hydrogen and oxygen gas, I magnetically oscillate transversely a near light speed beam of electrons and it will produce ultra violet light at this precise frequency. Let’s see how the science of global warming does in their predictions.
Global CO2 emissions have risen 15% since 2010…..
Climate Mafia: “That’s a nice climate you’ve got there. Be a shame if anything happened to it.”
Shopkeeper: “But nothing bad has happened yet!”
Climate Mafia: “We’ve been working in the neighbourhood… so give us you money and we’ll keep protecting you.”
Fraser Orr, on green alarmism (I cannot find a link to the original post)
The 3rd rate ‘scientists’ pushing climate alarm are humiliating themselves further now by claiming to have prevented 8.5. It was never remotely plausible but it was widely used by the dupes and charlatans pushing government actions that were both unnecessary and very destructive.
“And yet the UK continues down a path to NetZero that will destroy the country and impoverish their people.”
Because the point has nothing to do with carbon dioxide. The point IS to destroy the country and impoverish the people.
“how stupid do these people think we are?”
Not as stupid as we think they are.
As several people have correctly pointed out – the policies of the “experts” failed in their own terms, Carbon Dioxide emissions (thanks to the People’s Republic of China and other powers) greatly increased.
The fact that the “experts” are implying the opposite shows that they are liars – and if they will lie about a matter they claim is of incredible importance, what else are they lying about?
Do they tell the truth about anything?
No
Well, yes. But even if we accept that actions made RCP 8.5 impossible we still need to know which action. There’s a paper that discusses this, modesty does not allow me to reveal authorship. https://thegwpf.org/publications/shale-revolution-makes-extreme-global-warming-scenarios-implausible/ The invention of fracking made RCP 8.5 impossible.