Public

Public

Caught Pushing An Apocalyptic Scenario They Knew Couldn’t Occur, Climate Scientists Are Now Claiming Their Policies Prevented It

Clique of stealth activists, including the former head of the National Academies of Science, claimed a high-emissions future was possible long after it had been falsified

Michael Shellenberger's avatar
Michael Shellenberger
Sep 03, 2026
∙ Paid
Zeke Hausfather, climate scientist and IPCC lead author; Marcia McNutt, geophysicist and former president of the National Academies of Science; Gavin Schmidt, climate scientist and director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Climate policies saved the world from catastrophic warming, say leading climate scientists. On September 1, a consortium that produces analyses for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released new scenarios. They say the new worst-case scenario is just 3.3 degrees Celsius of warming by 2100 over pre-industrial temperatures. That’s down from 4.6 to 4.9 degrees of the last three generations of climate scenarios used by the IPCC. “Our business-as-usual projection of 3C of warming – rather than 4 or 5C – is a testament to the progress in global decarbonization over the last few decades,” wrote climate scientists Zeke Hausfather, Glen Peters, and Piers Forster back in May.

Others agreed. Chris Smith, a modeler at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis who helped build the new scenarios, told Carbon Brief that “back in 2010, RCP8.5 wasn’t an implausible future, we’ve now made it an implausible future.” Gavin Schmidt, the longtime director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, argued that scenarios shifted “in light of what we (as a society) are doing,” so that “we have already done things and so ‘business’ is no longer ‘usual.’” Robert Vautard, cochair of the IPCC working group on physical science, said the old high scenarios “assumed no climate policies,” while “there ARE now many climate policies in many countries, developed in particular with the Paris Agreement signed in 2016.”

But the high emissions scenarios were never plausible.

Public is doing the painstaking work of debunking climate misinformation. We are 100% subscriber-supported. Please subscribe now to support our award-winning investigative journalism and to read the rest of the article.

This post is for paid subscribers

Already a paid subscriber? Sign in
© 2026 Michael Shellenberger · Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Start your SubstackGet the app
Substack is the home for great culture