Physical Address
23,24,25 & 26, 2nd Floor, Software Technology Park India, Opp: Garware Stadium,MIDC, Chikalthana, Aurangabad, Maharashtra – 431001 India
A social media post claims that the United Nations has admitted its climate projections were wrong, citing the RCP8.5 emissions scenario as evidence that climate science was a fraud. The post, shared by the account DeepDivesUSA, attributes the alleged admission to US President Donald Trump and uses it to question climate research funding and policies. However, the claim misrepresents the role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the purpose of emissions scenarios. The IPCC has clarified that it did not develop or own the updated scenarios at the centre of the controversy. The change also does not mean that scientists have withdrawn their findings on human-caused global warming.
Claim Post:
Claim 1: “President Trump takes huge VICTORY LAP after the climate change “experts” at the United Nations announce they were WRONG”
Fact: False. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has not admitted that its climate science was wrong. In a clarification published in May earlier this year, the panel stated that the updated emissions scenarios were part of the wider scientific literature coordinated by the World Climate Research Programme, not research developed or owned by the IPCC.
The IPCC assesses published scientific research to provide a comprehensive picture of climate change. It does not conduct its own research, run climate models or develop the emissions scenarios assessed in its reports. The panel also clarified that it does not own the scenarios examined in its Sixth Assessment Report. The post therefore misrepresents a change in the scientific community’s scenarios as an admission by the UN that its climate assessments were wrong.
Claim 2: “GOOD RIDDANCE! After 15 years of Dumocrats promising that “Climate Change” is going to destroy the Planet, the United Nations TOP Climate Committee just admitted that its own projections (RCP8.5) were WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!”
Fact: Misleading. RCP8.5 is a high-emissions scenario developed to examine a future in which greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise substantially. A study assumed factors such as high population growth, slow improvements in energy efficiency and limited climate policy. The scenario was intended to explore the consequences of very high emissions, rather than predict that the world would definitely follow that pathway. The scenario has faced criticism because researchers and the public have sometimes presented it as a likely future, even though it represents an extreme emissions pathway.
Scientists have since developed newer scenarios that reflect changes in energy technologies, emissions trends and socioeconomic conditions. However, the declining plausibility of RCP8.5 as a future pathway does not mean its climate calculations were fraudulent or that climate change itself has been disproved. As Carbon Brief reported in its fact-check of Trump’s claims, the IPCC did not announce that RCP8.5 was wrong.
Claim 3: “For far too long, Climate Activism has been used by Democrats to scare Americans, push horrible Energy Policies, and fund BILLIONS into their bogus research programs.”
“Unlike the Democrats, who use Climate Alarmism nonsense to push their GREEN NEW SCAM, my Administration will always be based on TRUTH, SCIENCE, and FACT! President DONALD J. TRUMP”
“This was one huge FRAUD. Never fund the green scams again!”
Fact: False. The update to emissions scenarios does not establish that climate research was fabricated or that public funding was misused. The post provides no evidence linking the scenario update to research fraud. Disagreements over the likelihood of a particular emissions pathway cannot, on their own, demonstrate that scientific findings were manipulated or that research programmes are fraudulent.
The IPCC’s conclusions draw on a broad body of published research, not a single scenario. Its Sixth Assessment Report concluded that human influence has unequivocally warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. The report also documented observed changes in the climate system, including rising global temperatures and sea levels. These findings are based on multiple lines of evidence, including observations, physical understanding of the climate system and climate modelling. The revision of future emissions scenarios does not overturn that evidence.
What does the RCP8.5 update actually mean?
Climate scenarios help researchers examine how the climate could change under different levels of greenhouse gas emissions and different socioeconomic pathways. They allow scientists to assess potential risks and impacts under a range of conditions. They are not all intended to predict the single most likely future. The IPCC explains how different emissions scenarios are used to assess future climate change.
RCP8.5 was developed as a high-emissions pathway, assuming substantial growth in greenhouse gas emissions in the absence of specific climate mitigation policies. Its usefulness lies in examining the potential consequences of that pathway, including the risks associated with very high warming. Problems arise when the scenario is presented as a definite forecast rather than one possible future.
Newer scenarios reflect developments in the global energy system, including the expansion of renewable energy and changes in the assumptions used to model future emissions. These changes can affect which pathways scientists consider plausible, but they do not remove the physical relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.
The IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report states that human activities, principally through greenhouse gas emissions, have unequivocally caused global warming. It estimated that global surface temperatures in 2011–2020 were around 1.1°C above the 1850–1900 average. The evidence for human-caused warming therefore does not depend on whether one particular high-emissions scenario remains plausible.
The social media post takes a change in future emissions scenarios and presents it as proof that the UN admitted climate science was a fraud. The available evidence does not support that interpretation.
References:
Explainer: The high-emissions ‘RCP8.5’ global warming scenario
Factcheck: Trump’s false claims about the IPCC and ‘RCP8.5’ climate scenario – Carbon Brief
Chapter 3: Human Influence on the Climate System
Chapter 4 | Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis
17 March 2023 IPCC SIXTH ASSESSMENT REPORT (AR6) “CLIMATE CHA
Banner image: AI Generated
Sections of this article may have been developed with the assistance of artificial intelligence tools to support research, drafting, and language refinement. All information has been reviewed, edited, and verified by the author/editor to ensure accuracy, context, and editorial integrity. The responsibility for the final content, interpretations, and conclusions rests solely with the publisher.
