The Great Climate Science Swindle Goes On

It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world – that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.

Harvard Emeritus Professor Richard Lindzen

When the story of the great turn-of-the-millennium climate science fraud comes to be written by future historians, the central role of the RCP8.5 ‘business as usual’ model scenario, much featured in recent IPCC reports, will be obvious to all. This ‘pathway’ has polluted climate model predictions for years with its wild and improbable claims of carbon dioxide emissions and soaring temperatures. A huge number of science papers incorporating the pathway are published by obvious Net Zero activists, and their ‘scientists say’ climate psychosis-inducing fairy tales are sped on their way by blinkered journalists in the mainstream press. The science writer Roger Pielke Jr. notes that RCP8.5 has been “falsified” – most knew it was fake, historians are likely to conclude, but the Net Zero addiction was too strong for it to be given up.

By “falsified”, Dr Pielke explains in a recent Substack article, he means that the pathway’s emissions trajectory is already well out of step with reality. To prove his point he offers up the 2021 evidence contained in Burgess et al. highlighted in the graph below.

According to Pielke, the gap between the black arrow (RCP8.5) and the blue arrow (reality) indicates that RCP8.5 is not just unlikely but impossible. Since the paper was published, Pielke notes that the gap between RCP8.5 and reality has only grown larger. RCP8.5 also assumes that global temperatures will rise by a possible 4°C in less than 80 years, a heck of an ask given temperatures have risen by barely 0.25°C over at least the last 25 years. Recently President Trump’s executive order titled ‘Restoring Gold Standard Science’ effectively outlawed the use of RCP8.5 for scientists on the US federal payroll, noting that it uses highly unlikely assumptions such as end-of-century coal use exceeding estimates of recoverable reserves.

The climate researcher Zeke Hausfather dismissed the Trump Administration’s claims about RCP8.5 by stating that the research community had moved on, noted Pielke. But Hausfather’s ‘nothing to see here’ is wrong, says Pielke. From 2018 to 2021, Google Scholar reported 17,000 articles published using RCP8.5, he reports. From 2022 to 2025, the same source reported 16,900 offending articles. “Some shift,” he observes.

Of course, as Pielke shows, the use of RCP8.5 and its later similar counterpart SSP5-8.5  is far from over, and in fact it appears to be increasingly vital in whipping up support for the fading Net Zero fantasy. Nowhere more so than in mainstream media where a truly awful example of its use was to be found in a recent story written by Mark Poynting at the BBC. This rising doomster star recently sent the children to bed crying by effectively claiming that ‘scientists say’ coastal land and beyond could be overwhelmed with several metres of sea level rise if the global temperature moves by three-tenths of a degree centigrade. This magnificent effort from yet another climate activist on the BBC payroll was arrived at by pushing the boundaries well beyond what even SSP5-8.5 predicted. Based on a paper looking at polar ice melt, which gave a high-emissions projected rise by 2100 of between 12 and 52 centimetres, Poynting chanced on a suggestion in the paper that the IPCC said it could not rule out (admittedly with “low confidence”) that the pathway could point to a sea level rise of over 15 metres by 2300. That’s the way you do it, job done with the first paragraph going strong on the several metres claim “even if the ambitious targets of limiting global warming to 1.5°C is met”.

In 2021 Roger Pielke teamed up with Justin Ritchie and argued that the use of RCP8.5 was driven by the requirements that computer climate models had a high signal-to-noise ratio. In other words, although the pair do not put it in precisely these terms, rigged models driving political propaganda needed to over-emphasise any greenhouse gas warming from burning hydrocarbons compared with natural climate variation. The lack of real world plausibility is said to have led to misleading policy implications.

And some! The history of the great climate science scam and the role it played in the collectivists trying to foist Net Zero on a global population will give RCP8.5 a starring role. But it will also accuse those who trashed the scientific process, invented the idea of ‘settled’ science and attempted to demonise any findings that didn’t blame humans for the weather – looking at you BBC, but you were little worse than most mainstream media (it’s just that we had to pay for all your twaddle). Blame can also be attached to state-funded meteorological operations around the world using unnaturally heat-ravaged stations to produce rising temperature readings and countless new ‘records’. Nobody in the polite mainstream brought up all the dud data since to do so would have opened a Pandora’s box that was in nobody’s political interest. It will not, of course, be possible to forget all those university employees adding ‘science’ to describe their unscientific work and greatly helping their employment prospects, not to mention their grant-raising abilities. And there will be a big shout out for all those billionaires that poured billions into curating a narrative aimed at everyone from tame journalists to defenceless school children.

But if your correspondent is still around to write the book, I shall reserve a special place in hell for a group of Lib Dem, Labour and Conservative legislators. These 200 dangerous Lefty MPs supported a private member’s bill in the British House of Commons earlier this year that, if it had passed, would have cut the use of all domestic and imported hydrocarbons to barely 10% within a decade. Not enough to even run emergency services, let alone provide warmth and food for a population of nearly 70 million. This is an extreme case, although many politicians seem to wish for measures that will likely lead to economic and societal collapse. Nevertheless, it is a shining example of how far the madness actually went in the first quarter of the 21st century.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.

Subscribe
Notify of

To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

19 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dinger64
10 months ago

Co2 is a deadly poison in greater densities but not at the ratio in the earth’s atmosphere, they need to admit the true scientific facts behind it and stop with all the bo!!ocks

JXB
JXB
10 months ago
Reply to  Dinger64

Point of fact: C02 is not “poison”. very high levels displaces oxygen leading to asphyxia (lack of oxygen) then hypoxia, tissue death. It can also can cause intoxication and unconsciousness at high levels.

Very high levels of oxygen cause intoxication, unconsciousness, death. We don’t call oxygen “poison”.

The medical gas oxygen is not “pure”, it contains low level carbon dioxide to stimulate respiration – pure oxygen would stop it.

On board navy submarines C02 concentrations, depending on length of time submerged, average 3 000ppm to 5 000ppm and can in some instances be as high as 10 000ppm.

kev
kev
10 months ago
Reply to  JXB

CO2 is not toxic at any concentration, it is inert. As noted above at high concentrations it is dangerous to humans and most “Animals” but not because its toxic, it may lead to asphyxiation due to Oxygen levels being too low.

Only plants derive benefit from CO2, and for them it is absolutely critical.

I was unaware of the Submarine issue, and would like to see some evidence – not that I don’t believe it, but because our sides evidence needs to be faultless and verifiable.

I know for a certainty that plant growers add supplemental levels of CO2 to their greenhouses, and the optimal level for most plants appears to be in the region of 1,200 ppm, so roughly 3 times the current “low” level. CO2 in excess of a plants requirement is no issue, they just make use of what they need, the rest is just unused. It’s possible some plant would benefit from levels well in excess of 1200 ppm, it needs someone to run some experiments on individual plants and their CO2 needs, as in a proper scientific experiment, whereby they publish their data and allow others to test their hypothesis!

What a great idea!

WillP
10 months ago
Reply to  Dinger64

Wut? It’s no more ‘deadly” than water

Dinger64
10 months ago
Reply to  WillP

“Carbon dioxide does not only cause asphyxiation by hypoxia but also acts as a toxicant. At high concentrations, it has been showed to cause unconsciousness almost instantaneously and respiratory arrest within 1 min”

notice ‘not only causes asphyxiation by hypoxia’ it also acts as a toxicant meaning it is toxic! If it wasn’t poisonous then why death within a minute? You can go without oxygen for longer than that before it causes death, ego, it is toxic

Just Stop it Now
9 months ago
Reply to  Dinger64

A family member (an anaesthetist with a BSc in pharmacology) is fond of saying “its the dose that makes the poison”

Virtually anything is toxic (never mind a “toxicant”) at sufficiently high levels

Dinger64
9 months ago

I get your point, i was puzzled too when I found out Co2 can cause death long before hypoxia so I did some research and found it is a medical fact
Lung and brain tissue damage can occur rapidly after inhalation and not due to oxygen depravation and it’s permanent!

sskinner
10 months ago
Reply to  Dinger64

For reference: The US Navy’s submarines are run with CO2 levels varying from 300-11,300ppm.[1] The military did plenty of studies in the 60s and 70s and failed to find significant cognitive effects in environments as high as 4% CO2.[2] > Thus, CO2 at 40,000 ppm for 2 weeks did not affect performance on multiple tests of cognitive function in physically fit young airmen, a population probably not unlike submariners. > A number of studies suggest that CO2 exposures in the range of 15,000-40,000 ppm do not impair neurobehavioral performance. Schaefer (1961) reported that 23 crewmen exposed to CO2 at 15,000 ppm for 42 days in a submarine showed no psychomotor testing effects but showed moderate increases in anxiety, apathy, uncooperativeness, desire to leave, and sexual desire. > In a 5-day exposure of seven subjects at a CO2 concentration of 30,000 ppm, Glatte et al. (1967) reported no effects on hand steadiness, vigilance, auditory monitoring, memory, or arithmetic and problem solving performance. > CO2 exposure did not affect performance on the tracking task or any of the six RPM subtests (Storm and Giannetta 1974). There’s also an argument from biology. When sitting around, people exhale 4-5% CO2. That’s 40,000-50,000ppm. An extra… Read more »

Dinger64
9 months ago
Reply to  sskinner

Please see my post above, I’m not denying the tests but they have been revisited using modern medical techniques since then
The point you mentioned about rebreathing your own breath has also been identified as being damaging over long periods of time, ie mask wearing!!

EppingBlogger
10 months ago

Coukd you [re]post a list of the 200 foolish MPs?

WillP
10 months ago
Reply to  EppingBlogger

two of them were tories.

Jonathan M
Jonathan M
10 months ago
Reply to  WillP

No – two of them were “Tories”.

Crosby
Crosby
10 months ago

King Charle’s list of failed catastrophe predictions is worth noting

King Charles III Has a Climate Record to Live Down | RealClearEnergy

Jeff Chambers
Jeff Chambers
10 months ago

… the great climate science scam and the role it played in the collectivists …

They’re not really collectivists – they’re statists who’ve adopted the tyrannical total-control state as their preferred political ideal. And their “activism” is a product of their desire to position themselves at the top of the controlling hierarchy.

mrbu
mrbu
10 months ago

Won’t the Net Zero brigade use that same graph to argue that the switch to renewables and away from fossil fuels is having an effect on CO2 emissions, and therefore we need to continue doing it, but more so? They’re very adept at bending statistics to suit their needs.

Heretic
Heretic
10 months ago

And to show the extreme lengths the Globalists will go to force the Global Warming Hoax down humanity’s throats, the Colombian Patriot and presidential hopeful Senator Miguel Uribe suffered an assassination attempt after denying Global Warming and repeatedly criticizing the Leftist President Petro for harming the Colombian economy by Net Zero measures.

rafe.champion
rafe.champion
9 months ago

Let’s welcome warming if it is really happening because the warming since the Little ice age has been entirely beneficial and we have still not got to the even more favourable warmth of the Roman and mediaeval warm periods. Clearly if there is no practical reason to worry about warming it follows that there is no practical reason to worry about the level of CO2 aka plant food in the air. In the world of science it is a matter of engrossing interest to investigate the causes of warming and cooling and the dynamics of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. There is no scientific reason for the government to have any policy at all about warming or carbon dioxide in the air. Unfortunately we have subsidies and mandates for intermittent inputs of wind and solar power to the grid and these have driven a great deal of conventional power out of service. Trillions have been spent around the world to get rid of coal in order to get more expensive and less reliable electricity with catastrophic environmental impacts. Will This could have been avoided if the meteorologists have issued wind drought warnings and the wind farmers had taken the… Read more »

RJBassett
RJBassett
9 months ago

A great article and the chart would, in any rational world, be an end to the discussion on the absurd notion that there is a climate emergency.

Sadly, that’s not the world we live in today.

RTSC
RTSC
9 months ago

It sounds like Chris Morrison has accepted that the Net Zero Maniacs are going to win.

Please don’t give up the fight Chris. There are millions of people in the UK who know it’s nonsense; who don’t want their areas ruined by windmills, solar farms and massive pylons and are voting against it now they have a Party that is offering a choice.

Ordinary people can’t afford the second-rate “technology” the Eco Nutters are trying to force on them. And what they can’t afford, they won’t get.