NY Times Discusses Why UN IPCC “Scientists” Rolled Back Their Doomy Prognostication

Sadly, there is no way around the paywall (without paying, of course), beyond a few paragraphs

Why Scientists Retired the Dire Climate Scenario Used for Over a Decade

It’s rare for technical papers about climate modeling to kick off a heated public debate, or attract attention from the White House.

But that’s what happened recently after an international team of researchers published a major revision of the emissions scenarios used to study global warming.

When scientists try to model how hot Earth could get this century, they typically look at a range of possibilities for how much planet-warming pollution humans might pump into the atmosphere. These scenarios get updated every seven years or so.

In this latest update, the researchers abandoned a dire — and often criticized — high-emissions scenario known as RCP8.5 that has been prominently cited in thousands of climate studies over the past decade. The authors said the scenario was now “implausible” given recent energy trends.

That provoked online arguments among scientists. For years, critics of the high-emissions scenario had argued that it was always unrealistic, in part because it envisioned that countries would burn coal at absurdly high rates. They argued that any studies or news reports relying on that scenario exaggerated the risks of climate change. Why, those critics now asked, did the course correction take so long?

Because people aren’t buying into the Category 5 Doomsaying anymore

The Daily Caller notes the long, long, long history of the NY Times dropping fear p0rn with climate doom, using that exact RCP8.5, and notes

The NYT Editorial Board published “Climate Change Is Not Negotiable” in 2022, arguing for radical revisions to the U.S. economy and government to forestall global warming’s allegedly devastating consequences.

“Some of us have been talking about this for almost a decade. The fact that it took so long is a big problem. There will be significant consequences as the world unwinds from the extreme scenarios,” American Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Roger Pielke previously told the Daily Caller News Foundation when asked about media usage of RCP 8.5. “Science is self-correcting but sometimes that process takes too long.”

And

I disagree: I think a goodly chunk of the climate (cult) scientists meant to use RCP8.5 exactly like that. It was always meant to institute more and more government, more and more taxes/fees, more Authoritarianism.