The United Nations climate committee has officially removed its most extreme warming projections from use, a change finalized this month that eliminates RCP8.5 and its updated versions, SSP5-8.5 and SSP3-7.0. These scenarios had assumed global coal use would nearly triple, no climate policies would be enacted, and population growth would reach levels far beyond what is considered realistic.
For 15 years, these projections were treated as a standard baseline. They are no longer part of the active framework. President Donald Trump responded to the decision on Truth Social on Friday, characterizing it as a defeat for what he called “Climate Alarmism nonsense.” He stated the projections were “WRONG!
WRONG! WRONG!” and accused Democrats of using them to advance a “GREEN NEW SCAM.” The president described the retirement as a victory for “TRUTH, SCIENCE, and FACT.” The practical implications extend beyond politics.
Over the past decade, governments, central banks, and media organizations relied on RCP8.5 as the default worst-case scenario. That reliance influenced trillions of dollars in investment choices, shaped insurance risk models, and defined the parameters of major climate policy discussions. The committee has now acknowledged that the underlying assumptions were never plausible. RCP8.5 envisioned a world where coal use nearly triples, no meaningful climate policy is adopted anywhere, and population growth hits the upper limit of demographic forecasts.
While originally designed as a stress test, it was frequently presented as “business as usual,” driving headlines, funding decisions, and public concern. The committee’s retirement of these scenarios marks the most significant change in climate-scenario practice since the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report.
The new CMIP7 modeling framework, adopted this month, does not include these retired scenarios. Future climate projections will therefore begin from a different, more realistic baseline. This does not mean climate change is not occurring.
The report does not make that claim, nor does the committee. The change indicates that one specific set of projections was overstated and implausible.
For years, activists and officials cited RCP8.5 as evidence of imminent catastrophe. That was a misrepresentation of the data. The practical result is that policy debates can now be based on actual science rather than an unrealistic worst-case scenario.
The problem of climate change is not resolved, but the framing has been corrected. President Trump’s reaction is consistent with his previous positions.
He views the retirement as validation and is using it to criticize the Green New Deal and broader climate activism. The core fact remains that the UN’s own climate committee acknowledged its signature worst-case projection was not realistic. This changes the conversation.
For investors, risk models require updates. For regulators, stress tests based on RCP8.5 are no longer credible.
For the public, the most alarming climate headlines of the past decade were built on an implausible foundation. The committee did not declare climate change a hoax or say warming will stop. It stated that the worst-case scenario used to generate fear was not realistic.
