when even Vox admits it, the reality is finally seeping into the minds of libtards.

https://archive.ph/MH0Ct

that author says:

Those numbers shaped a decade and a half of climate journalism, including a lot of my own when I covered climate change at Time magazine. I didn’t always know — and didn’t always communicate — that the scenario behind the most apocalyptic, attention-getting findings was largely an attempt to imagine how bad things could get, not a true forecast. But I wasn’t alone. RCP 8.5 was a frequent background presence in climate journalism.

===

for a taste of how RCP 8.5 shaped narratives, consider the infamous article, The Uninhabitable Earth, by David Wallace-Wells:

https://archive.ph/UkGiU

It is, I promise, worse than you think. If your anxiety about global warming is dominated by fears of sea-level rise, you are barely scratching the surface of what terrors are possible, even within the lifetime of a teenager today. And yet the swelling seas — and the cities they will drown — have so dominated the picture of global warming, and so overwhelmed our capacity for climate panic, that they have occluded our perception of other threats, many much closer at hand. Rising oceans are bad, in fact very bad; but fleeing the coastline will not be enough.

Indeed, absent a significant adjustment to how billions of humans conduct their lives, parts of the Earth will likely become close to uninhabitable, and other parts horrifically inhospitable, as soon as the end of this century.

===

as usual, Pielke offers a summary you can trust:

https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/rcp85-is-officially-dead

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5869179&forum_id=2#49901992)

The only real "news" here is that "journalists were retarded and based 'coverage' based on the worst scenario instead of the median", which is hardly news to anyone

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5869179&forum_id=2#49902099)

https://nca5.climate.us/#overview-section-3

"For example, mass fish die-offs from extreme summertime heat are projected to double by midcentury in northern temperate lakes under a very high scenario (RCP8.5)."

It's purely retarded journalism that portrayed this as "OMG IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN". Projections come with scenarios specifically to show people how things could change with different parameters. And again, why does any of this even matter if you think the IPCC is a fraud to begin with, which has always been the position of the "climate change is a hoax" crowd?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5869179&forum_id=2#49902140)

it matters massively, obviously. it demonstrates that the IPCC policy recommendations, the MSM, the libtard narrative, and the policies adopted by a lot of nations and NGOs (see the link above) were as false as the sane people claimed. it therefore fundamentally impeaches the IPCC process and narrative -- even by their own account.

RCP 8.5 wasn't some throw-away musing. it became hard policy and even the grounds for censorship. its death by its own proponents matters massively.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5869179&forum_id=2#49902211)

Source? A scenario isn't itself a "policy". And based on what I saw above the justification of it being used directly as "policy" is laughably thin.

This smells of "LOOK AT THE OZONE HOLE FRAUD" level of "analysis". The reason the ozone hole no longer exists is because of policy targeting CFCs. It's not exactly a shock that in a world with lower than expected fertility rates compared to 20 years ago and declining usage of coal worldwide (even if it's up in China) the highest projection is no longer relevant. What do you think would've happened if we embarked on a major project to build a ton of coal plans?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5869179&forum_id=2#49902290)

and for the record i've never denied the Ozone Hole or the appropriateness of the policies designed to fit it. that issue stands or falls on its own merits regardless of the merits of climate change alarmism. but it's telling that you choose to link and lump disparate issues into partisan categories like that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5869179&forum_id=2#49902327)

The highest scenario is no longer relevant because a) birth rates changed, and b) countries have largely followed recommendations (whether purposefully or not) to start reducing reliance on fossil fuels and coal specifically instead of expanding their usage relative to renewables/nuclear.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5869179&forum_id=2#49902333)

if the issues aren't linked, then they rise or fall on their own merits. obviously.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5869179&forum_id=2#49902388)