I am looking for an organization, like The Honest Broker/Swedish Radio, that do care about the horrific Global Warming (GW) mistake by the United Nations UNFCCC/IPCC that they have committed. It is so horrifically large and so long forgotten, it is believed as GW truth that furthers the Climate Change (CC) Green New Deal corrupt political agenda.
I am a seasoned Science Engineer studying Global Warming geophysics since the 2015 Paris Climate Accords. I have proof that the United Nations UNFCCC/IPCC Green New Deal is a HOAX mathematically per straight forward geophysics as found attached (SunShine4Trump2.jpg) that is found at FB link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/181254384531/posts/10162910863304532/
If The Honest Broker/Swedish Radio do care, as you all obviously do, The Honest Broker/Swedish Radio will become one with (SunShine4Trump2.jpg) and accordingly act. Regards, Byron L Trackwell, byrontrackwell@cox.net, Topeka KS USA.
Dr Pielke, as you know I have been complaining about RCP8.5 and associated scenarios for over a decade. This morning I was having a work session with Grok3, and it mentioned SSP5 8.5 as an useful reference when trying to calibrate a carbon sink model. I explained the situation as I saw it, and detailed how it morphed into BAU. Here's a bit of its answer. If you want the full response I could email.
Your insight into the origins and evolution of RCP8.5 (and its SSP5-8.5 successor) is spot-on and aligns with a growing chorus of skepticism about its legitimacy. It’s fascinating to hear this perspective—especially the behind-the-scenes detail about how the 8.5 W/m² target was set by a committee for CMIP5 and then reverse-engineered into a scenario. That process alone raises red flags about how scientific objectivity can get tangled up in goal-driven modeling. Let’s dissect this history, your critique, and its implications for carbon sink estimates, while keeping it grounded and conversational.
---
### The Genesis of RCP8.5: A Target in Search of a Story
You’re right that RCP8.5 emerged from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5), launched around 2007-2010. The radiative forcing target—8.5 W/m² by 2100—wasn’t derived from a natural projection of human behavior but was instead a top-down choice. As you noted, a team (led by groups like IIASA and the MESSAGE modelers) was tasked with crafting a socioeconomic-energy-emissions pathway to hit that mark. Their solution, detailed in Riahi et al. (2011), leaned heavily on:
- **Massive Fossil Fuel Use:** Emissions ramping up to ~120 GtCO2/year by 2100, driven by a coal resurgence (coal use growing 5x from 2000 levels).
- **High CO2 Concentrations:** Reaching >1000 ppm, implying cumulative emissions of ~2500 GtCO2 from 2000-2100.
- **Economic Assumptions:** Sustained global growth despite extreme warming.
This was labeled an “extreme case” initially—a high-end benchmark to test climate model responses, not a prediction. The IPCC AR5 (2013-2014) reflects this: it presents RCP8.5 alongside RCP2.6, 4.5, and 6.0 as part of a range, with no explicit “business-as-usual” (BAU) tag. The report’s language is cautious, framing it as a “high forcing scenario” (e.g., AR5 Synthesis Report, Section 1.2).
---
### The “BAU” Pivot: PowerPoints and PR
Your point about the BAU label emerging post-AR5 via high-level IPCC figures is a critical shift. Around 2015-2016, as Paris Agreement talks ramped up, RCP8.5 started appearing in presentations and media briefings as the “do-nothing” baseline. Names like Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, a prominent IPCC voice, and others tied to the UNFCCC process, reportedly used it in slides to dramatize the stakes—contrasting it with low-emission pathways like RCP2.6. This wasn’t in the peer-reviewed AR5 text but crept into the narrative through outreach.
I live in a coastal community in climate-change hysterical Massachusetts where our state government uses the highest sea level rise and global warming trend "data" (RCP8.5) to justify criminally bad energy policy. I am on a town "Climate Resiliency Committee," which I joined to keep an eye out on those who are all in on using the state numbers to get state and federal funding for whatever they can and are looking to report out to the town as much scary data as they can. When I questioned the committee's focus on climate change rather than "resilience" and pointed out the state's use of RCP8.5 as being the highest of projections and that even most climate change scientists think a substantially lower model is more likely, a leader of the committee stated, "while there may be disagreement over long term projections, everyone agrees on what will occur over the next 25 years." What do you think, Dr. Pielke? Do most "experts" in climate "science" agree about shorter term predictions?
As important as the what and how is the why. That however would result in a one character essay: $. Or longer: $$$.
More seriously, while almost every individual scientist and even bureacrat, has a "good heart" integrity, work ethic etc, something has gone wrong in climate science, and some other disciplines.
I can't say I buy that line "noble cause corruption". If you're making things up to fight a non-existent challenge, that's just pure corruption. If there truly existed a "noble cause" there would be real data to support it's existence. You can't suck and blow at the same time.
Still waiting to hear Chris Wright announce a public debate on the climate emergency focusing on data so we can settle this and move forward based on reality.
Careful, Pat. Data, logic, and open debate are dominant culture values. And probably racist.
To be slightly less snarky, "racist" now means any words or ideas that contradict a progressive viewpoint or value. And as woke post-modern critical theorists have actually told us, reality, at least the kind defined by old-school science, is a figment of our imagination.
Look instead at who benefits from this serial misinformation, and by benefit i mean $$$$$.
That is what this is all about.
Its what its always about.
Its why the Chinese govt is active in supporting the Liberals here in canada, continuing today as they are behind attacks on Freeland (not a fan of her either) to the benefit of Mark Carney (who is emblematic of this Green Blob controlling the UN discourse). Carney IS the blob.
As always, "Climate Emergency" is the hammer that enables forcing of bad policy including $$$$$$ to dead tech like renewables.
As for sea level rise vs. land subsidence, I have called others out on this before, including a piece in the WSJ a few years ago about flooding of an island off the coast of Panama, and the impacts on the indigenous(!) people who live there. Unfortunately for the author, island subsidence rates, in the tectonically active Caribbean, are the cause. I corresponded with the author, who was gracious enough but essentially said "So what".
And land subsidence is a global phenomena. Most shoreline areas sit on passive continental margins, sinking since tectonic rifting created those ocean margins millions to hundreds of millions of years ago. On top of many of those margins, literally, are kilometers of younger sediments, which contract with short and long term compaction, further adding to land subsidence.
Well done Roger. We are living through the real world implications of energy policy based on shoddy data and science. De-evolutionary energy policies have caused significant de-industrialization in Europe. Geopolitical events are requiring massive expenditures to begin re-industrializing at a time when it is overly dependent on energy from its rival, which did not go down the green energy path and produces massive amounts of hydrocarbon based power. The near term economic impact is a spike in German interest rates, which have a significant economic cost to the German people, who are already paying incredibly high rates for electricity. The longer term impact is completely counterproductive as Poland and the Czech Republic will be mining and exporting a great deal more very high carbon intensity coal to the neighbors as coal fired plants can be brought back on line much more quickly than other fuels.
Wayne Liston nailed it when he quoted Eisenhower, "... a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded". I doubt it's because scientists don't care. It's a matter of staying employed and providing for one's family. And now it's devolved into cash whiplash for many. Scientists working for liberal presidential administrations, universities, and media didn't dare oppose the liberal climate crisis narrative. Now those same scientists working in the Trump administration won't dare to oppose the conservative climate narrative. Science is hostage to political narratives.
Seems to me that if you stick to the data you won't fall afoul of Trump or Wright. But if you stick to the data, there is no emergency, maybe a lot of research is unneeded.
double edged sword.
All goes back to the Upton Sinclair quote about getting someone to understand something they are paid not to understand.
In addition, most university faculty, even in science, lean left and are just as susceptible to personal bias as "regular" people, despite their scientific training. In fact, what I see lately in academia suggests that training new scientists now prioritizes activism over objective rigor.
Thanks for sending that link. After a quick read (and as a fellow Colorado public university faculty) I think you nailed it, even though the Jacobins at CU nailed you. Someday I would enjoy buying you a beer, or three, and digging deeper.
This exemplifies the sort of thing you would forward to your family and friends in the hopes of spreading awareness and media literacy in matters of science and climate.
I am looking for an organization, like The Honest Broker/Swedish Radio, that do care about the horrific Global Warming (GW) mistake by the United Nations UNFCCC/IPCC that they have committed. It is so horrifically large and so long forgotten, it is believed as GW truth that furthers the Climate Change (CC) Green New Deal corrupt political agenda.
I am a seasoned Science Engineer studying Global Warming geophysics since the 2015 Paris Climate Accords. I have proof that the United Nations UNFCCC/IPCC Green New Deal is a HOAX mathematically per straight forward geophysics as found attached (SunShine4Trump2.jpg) that is found at FB link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/181254384531/posts/10162910863304532/
If The Honest Broker/Swedish Radio do care, as you all obviously do, The Honest Broker/Swedish Radio will become one with (SunShine4Trump2.jpg) and accordingly act. Regards, Byron L Trackwell, byrontrackwell@cox.net, Topeka KS USA.
Dr Pielke, as you know I have been complaining about RCP8.5 and associated scenarios for over a decade. This morning I was having a work session with Grok3, and it mentioned SSP5 8.5 as an useful reference when trying to calibrate a carbon sink model. I explained the situation as I saw it, and detailed how it morphed into BAU. Here's a bit of its answer. If you want the full response I could email.
Your insight into the origins and evolution of RCP8.5 (and its SSP5-8.5 successor) is spot-on and aligns with a growing chorus of skepticism about its legitimacy. It’s fascinating to hear this perspective—especially the behind-the-scenes detail about how the 8.5 W/m² target was set by a committee for CMIP5 and then reverse-engineered into a scenario. That process alone raises red flags about how scientific objectivity can get tangled up in goal-driven modeling. Let’s dissect this history, your critique, and its implications for carbon sink estimates, while keeping it grounded and conversational.
---
### The Genesis of RCP8.5: A Target in Search of a Story
You’re right that RCP8.5 emerged from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5), launched around 2007-2010. The radiative forcing target—8.5 W/m² by 2100—wasn’t derived from a natural projection of human behavior but was instead a top-down choice. As you noted, a team (led by groups like IIASA and the MESSAGE modelers) was tasked with crafting a socioeconomic-energy-emissions pathway to hit that mark. Their solution, detailed in Riahi et al. (2011), leaned heavily on:
- **Massive Fossil Fuel Use:** Emissions ramping up to ~120 GtCO2/year by 2100, driven by a coal resurgence (coal use growing 5x from 2000 levels).
- **High CO2 Concentrations:** Reaching >1000 ppm, implying cumulative emissions of ~2500 GtCO2 from 2000-2100.
- **Economic Assumptions:** Sustained global growth despite extreme warming.
This was labeled an “extreme case” initially—a high-end benchmark to test climate model responses, not a prediction. The IPCC AR5 (2013-2014) reflects this: it presents RCP8.5 alongside RCP2.6, 4.5, and 6.0 as part of a range, with no explicit “business-as-usual” (BAU) tag. The report’s language is cautious, framing it as a “high forcing scenario” (e.g., AR5 Synthesis Report, Section 1.2).
---
### The “BAU” Pivot: PowerPoints and PR
Your point about the BAU label emerging post-AR5 via high-level IPCC figures is a critical shift. Around 2015-2016, as Paris Agreement talks ramped up, RCP8.5 started appearing in presentations and media briefings as the “do-nothing” baseline. Names like Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, a prominent IPCC voice, and others tied to the UNFCCC process, reportedly used it in slides to dramatize the stakes—contrasting it with low-emission pathways like RCP2.6. This wasn’t in the peer-reviewed AR5 text but crept into the narrative through outreach.
I live in a coastal community in climate-change hysterical Massachusetts where our state government uses the highest sea level rise and global warming trend "data" (RCP8.5) to justify criminally bad energy policy. I am on a town "Climate Resiliency Committee," which I joined to keep an eye out on those who are all in on using the state numbers to get state and federal funding for whatever they can and are looking to report out to the town as much scary data as they can. When I questioned the committee's focus on climate change rather than "resilience" and pointed out the state's use of RCP8.5 as being the highest of projections and that even most climate change scientists think a substantially lower model is more likely, a leader of the committee stated, "while there may be disagreement over long term projections, everyone agrees on what will occur over the next 25 years." What do you think, Dr. Pielke? Do most "experts" in climate "science" agree about shorter term predictions?
As important as the what and how is the why. That however would result in a one character essay: $. Or longer: $$$.
More seriously, while almost every individual scientist and even bureacrat, has a "good heart" integrity, work ethic etc, something has gone wrong in climate science, and some other disciplines.
I can't say I buy that line "noble cause corruption". If you're making things up to fight a non-existent challenge, that's just pure corruption. If there truly existed a "noble cause" there would be real data to support it's existence. You can't suck and blow at the same time.
Still waiting to hear Chris Wright announce a public debate on the climate emergency focusing on data so we can settle this and move forward based on reality.
Careful, Pat. Data, logic, and open debate are dominant culture values. And probably racist.
To be slightly less snarky, "racist" now means any words or ideas that contradict a progressive viewpoint or value. And as woke post-modern critical theorists have actually told us, reality, at least the kind defined by old-school science, is a figment of our imagination.
Yes, language control is narrative control.
I don't support many items Trump is doing, but unfortunately i think a bull in the china shop is a necessary evil today.
I care, but who am i.
Look instead at who benefits from this serial misinformation, and by benefit i mean $$$$$.
That is what this is all about.
Its what its always about.
Its why the Chinese govt is active in supporting the Liberals here in canada, continuing today as they are behind attacks on Freeland (not a fan of her either) to the benefit of Mark Carney (who is emblematic of this Green Blob controlling the UN discourse). Carney IS the blob.
As always, "Climate Emergency" is the hammer that enables forcing of bad policy including $$$$$$ to dead tech like renewables.
Well done, Roger.
Scientists say that 87.3% of all statistics are invented. :)
I thought it was 97%
The dung throwers are taking advantage of Brandolini's law: refutations are too complicated!
“Those who care” (you, Roger) will not be heeded by those who should care; it's felt as a nuisance and as boring.
To submit or escape is simpler and less risky than confrontation.
As for sea level rise vs. land subsidence, I have called others out on this before, including a piece in the WSJ a few years ago about flooding of an island off the coast of Panama, and the impacts on the indigenous(!) people who live there. Unfortunately for the author, island subsidence rates, in the tectonically active Caribbean, are the cause. I corresponded with the author, who was gracious enough but essentially said "So what".
And land subsidence is a global phenomena. Most shoreline areas sit on passive continental margins, sinking since tectonic rifting created those ocean margins millions to hundreds of millions of years ago. On top of many of those margins, literally, are kilometers of younger sediments, which contract with short and long term compaction, further adding to land subsidence.
Well done Roger. We are living through the real world implications of energy policy based on shoddy data and science. De-evolutionary energy policies have caused significant de-industrialization in Europe. Geopolitical events are requiring massive expenditures to begin re-industrializing at a time when it is overly dependent on energy from its rival, which did not go down the green energy path and produces massive amounts of hydrocarbon based power. The near term economic impact is a spike in German interest rates, which have a significant economic cost to the German people, who are already paying incredibly high rates for electricity. The longer term impact is completely counterproductive as Poland and the Czech Republic will be mining and exporting a great deal more very high carbon intensity coal to the neighbors as coal fired plants can be brought back on line much more quickly than other fuels.
Excellent article
Wayne Liston nailed it when he quoted Eisenhower, "... a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded". I doubt it's because scientists don't care. It's a matter of staying employed and providing for one's family. And now it's devolved into cash whiplash for many. Scientists working for liberal presidential administrations, universities, and media didn't dare oppose the liberal climate crisis narrative. Now those same scientists working in the Trump administration won't dare to oppose the conservative climate narrative. Science is hostage to political narratives.
Reply
Seems to me that if you stick to the data you won't fall afoul of Trump or Wright. But if you stick to the data, there is no emergency, maybe a lot of research is unneeded.
double edged sword.
All goes back to the Upton Sinclair quote about getting someone to understand something they are paid not to understand.
In addition, most university faculty, even in science, lean left and are just as susceptible to personal bias as "regular" people, despite their scientific training. In fact, what I see lately in academia suggests that training new scientists now prioritizes activism over objective rigor.
Agreed, have a look at my recent 5-part series on this:
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/fixing-universities
Thanks for sending that link. After a quick read (and as a fellow Colorado public university faculty) I think you nailed it, even though the Jacobins at CU nailed you. Someday I would enjoy buying you a beer, or three, and digging deeper.
This exemplifies the sort of thing you would forward to your family and friends in the hopes of spreading awareness and media literacy in matters of science and climate.
Great post Roger! Thanks for continuing your crusade for scientific integrity.
The UN has a procedure to address Ethical Lapses-
https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/2023-09/FINAL-UNDP-CODE-OF-ETHICS.pdf
"5. The UNDP Legal Framework for Addressing Non-Compliance with UN Standards of Conduct,
which serves to remind staff of their duty to abide by the highest standards of conduct. It
also defines the mechanisms that currently exist within UNDP for reporting allegations of
wrongdoing, as well as what constitutes misconduct; it clarifies the responsibilities of each
individual involved in the investigation of allegations of wrongdoing; it explains the
procedure following investigation; and it outlines the disciplinary procedure"
Maybe a legal expert could way in to determine if the executive leadership at the UN is covered under the "standards of conduct."