I was sitting in a theater in 2006 watching An Inconvenient Truth, wondering whether Al Gore had turned a legitimate environmental concern into a summer blockbuster. Twenty years later, the international scientific committee that sets official climate scenarios for the United Nations retired its most extreme emissions pathway — SSP5-8.5 — declaring it implausible. The announcement came buried in a technical paper from the CMIP7 ScenarioMIP committee, published in May 2026, and it landed with roughly the media fanfare of a recycling schedule update. The Guardian, which ran many hundreds of stories built on SSP5-8.5 projections, said nothing. Neither did Science or Nature. AEI Senior Fellow Roger Pielke Jr. called it "an absolutely huge development in climate science that will have lasting impacts across research and policy." A Dutch newspaper, De Volkskrant, ran it on the front-page May 4 under the headline "UN Climate Panel Drops Doomsday Scenario." Apparently, the Dutch read the fine print.

This is not a minor recalibration. The committee also retired SSP3-7.0 and the original RCP8.5 in the same sweep. All three assumed a world that dramatically expanded coal consumption through 2100, SSP5-8.5 projected a six-fold increase in per-capita coal use, a number untethered from any observable energy trend. The new CMIP7 HIGH scenario runs 0.9°C cooler than SSP5-8.5, and 1.4°C cooler relative to what the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report projected. The climate establishment built its policy architecture on a foundation it now concedes was implausible and did so for decades while critics were dismissed as deniers.

As a father of three boys and a longtime youth football and track coach, I've........

© Townhall