• Privacy Policy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Climate Change Dispatch
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
Climate Change Dispatch
No Result
View All Result

How Groupthink, Misinformation, And Lack Of Self-Correction Undermined Climate Science

by Roger Pielke Jr.
October 18, 2023, 2:05 PM
in News and Opinion
Reading Time: 8 mins read
A A
5

protest stop coal nowOver the past week, I have documented in two previous posts how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made a consequential error in its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) in 2013 in identifying RCP8.5 as the only legitimate baseline scenario for climate research and assessment.

Today in a third and final installment, I provide my explanation for the error — groupthink fueled by a misinformation campaign led by activist climate scientists. [emphasis, links added]

What I cannot explain is why the error has not since been corrected by the IPCC or others in authoritative positions in the scientific community.

In fact, the opposite has occurred — RCP8.5 remains commonly used as a baseline in research and policy, perhaps explaining why it continues to have many defenders.

The graph below shows the minimum radiative forcing 1 in the scenarios of the IPCC designated as baselines — where we thought we might be headed. 2

The graph shows how baseline scenarios became much more extreme over a very short period during the drafting of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report.

In 2000 the IPCC used 40 baseline emissions scenarios to project futures with a wide range of possible climate outcomes, with the lowest having a radiative forcing of about 4.5 Watts per meter-squared (W/m2) and the highest >8 W/m2.

By 2014, with the publication of the AR5, the IPCC had focused on a single baseline scenario — RCP8.5.

In 2012 and 2013, the IPCC AR5 collected scenarios that had been developed following the publication of the 2007 AR4 report. 3

Most of these 1,184 scenarios were produced by a small group of integrated assessment modelers who participated in the Energy Modeling Forum Model Inter-comparison Project 27 (EMF 27).

The four RCP scenarios were drawn from those scenarios developed using these various models.

Across these many models was a shared assumption of a global “renaissance in coal” through the 21st century.

You can see the implications of that shared assumption in the figure below from the work of Justin Ritchie who has meticulously and quantitatively documented the flawed assumptions underlying the IPCC AR5. 4

In the upper right of the figure above you can see the extreme RCP8.5 and SSP5 scenarios that the IPCC identified as baselines.

As you can see, these scenarios assume a 7-8x increase in coal consumption by 2100, implying the building of >30,000 new coal power plants this century — a rate of more than one per day coming online every day until 2100. Implausible.

The figure above also provides a clear indication of groupthink in the shared assumption that coal consumption would increase dramatically — an assumption grounded in a theory that has proven incorrect.

The consequences of the erroneous projection of a “coal renaissance” were magnified by the identification of the extreme RCP8.5 as the only legitimate baseline within the broad range of expectations for increasing coal consumption.

It is important to understand the global context in which these assumptions were made. In the early 2000s, carbon dioxide emissions were increasing rapidly, driven by development in China powered largely by coal.

A non-expert might have thought that a trend observed over several years might accurately represent energy systems over the next 90 years, but scenario experts knew better.

Even so, misinformation took root. A widely cited paper in PNAS 5 claimed that the carbon dioxide emissions growth rate from 2000 to 2004:

…was greater than for the most fossil-fuel intensive of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [SRES] emissions scenarios developed in the late 1990s…

That claim was false. It was made by climate scientists, not energy systems experts.

The false claim that emissions across all SRES scenarios had already been exceeded was widely repeated and promoted, making its way into a 2009 United Nations climate science report.

Some climate scientists advanced the idea that the IPCC scenarios were already out of date and not extreme enough.

By 2010, scenario experts became so frustrated about the misrepresentation of their work that 18 of them, many leaders in the field, wrote a letter to Nature titled, Misrepresentation of the IPCC CO2 emission scenarios, calling out climate scientists for misrepresenting the IPCC, explaining:

…contrary to some statements in recent publications current emissions are not higher than covered in the [SRES] climate change scenarios used by the last two Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments

However, the letter did not change the momentum of misinformation and groupthink.

What happened next was the ratcheting up of expected emissions in baseline scenarios as the IPCC AR5 report was being drafted.

Here is a timeline that goes along with the bar chart found above in this post.

  • 2011: The RCPs are published, RCP4.5 is identified as a baseline (i.e., 4.5 W/m2) 6
  • 2012: The IPCC AR5 first-order draft is written. It says: “…virtually all baseline scenarios 4 lead to radiative forcing above 5.0 W/m2 by the end of the century”
  • 2013: The IPCC AR5 final draft is written. It says that the majority of baselines are “above 6.0”
  • 2014: The IPCC AR5 is published and RCP8.5 is the only RCP scenario within the baseline range.

In 2023 the IPCC warned that RCP8.5 should not be used as a reference scenario and a group of experts convened to start preparing the next generation of scenarios has largely left RCP8.5 behind. 7

Even so, RCP8.5 continues to have champions. For instance, in response to a paper that I wrote with Justin Ritchie, IPCC AR5 Working Group 2 co-chair Chris Field 8 and Marcia McNutt, president of the U.S. National Academy of Science wrote:

…the high-emissions RCP8.5 scenario has long been described as a “business-as-usual” pathway with a continued emphasis on energy from fossil fuels with no climate policies in place. This remains 100% accurate…

One important characteristic of science is that it is self-correcting — over time we expect to get closer and closer to reliable knowledge.

Mistakes and misunderstandings are correctable, and it is our collective commitment to correction that advances understanding.

On climate scenarios, self-correction has failed.

In 2000, the IPCC presented 40 baseline scenarios that described an envelope of possible emissions futures that in 2023 we still remain within — in fact, near the center.

By 2014 we had discarded those scenarios and decided to focus research and policy on a single extreme baseline — now known to be misleading, flawed, and not fit for purpose.

Back in 2000, the SRES authors warned us:

The broad consensus among the SRES writing team is that the current literature analysis suggests the future is inherently unpredictable and so views will differ as to which of the storylines and representative scenarios could be more or less likely. Therefore, the development of a single “best guess” or “business-as-usual” scenario is neither desirable nor possible.

Today, RCP8.5 is deeply woven into the fabric of climate research and policy. Getting back on track will not be easy or without opposition.

Understanding how we got here should provide a cautionary warning for how science can go astray when we allow self-correction to fail.


Roger Pielke Jr. has been a professor at the University of Colorado since 2001. Previously, he was a staff scientist in the Environmental and Societal Impacts Group of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. He has degrees in mathematics, public policy, and political science, and is the author of numerous books. (Amazon).

Read rest at The Honest Broker

  • Truth
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Gettr
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…

Popular Posts

Electric Vehicles (EVs)

The ‘Green’ Scam Of The Century: How ‘Renewables’ Increase Fossil Fuel Demands

Oct 23, 2024
News and Opinion

Antarctica Is Colder, Icier Today Than At Any Time In 5,000 Years

Apr 15, 2024
Energy

30-Plus Signs That The Climate Scam Is Collapsing

Apr 09, 2025

Comments 5

  1. SPURWING PLOVER says:
    2 years ago

    Make everybody think that if we don’t surrender to a Global Government we all will die under Global Flood its what its a ll about Fear is being used against us Fears and Lies

    Reply
  2. David Lewis says:
    2 years ago

    RCP8.5 is soo useful in predicting drastic decline in harvests of wheat, chocolate, coffee, rice, grapes, and other crops. The US national climate assessment is based on an exaggerated version of RCP8.5. This is the basis of the climate emergency, move to net zero, and destroying the US economy. These are the reasons that the warmists are going to keep using RCP8.5. The fact that the model is based on absurd assumptions and its predictions don’t match real world data needs to be ignored.

    Reply
  3. Sonnyhill says:
    2 years ago

    We’re to believe, according to the Greasy Guterres, that the current scenario is Global Boiling. I haven’t heard any pushback of this hyperbole from the IPCC. Poor slobs can’t live without research grants.

    Reply
  4. Graham McDonald says:
    2 years ago

    Roger is a gentleman.

    His use of the word “Implausible”, after “one coal plant every day”, shows great restraint.

    Reply
  5. Spurwing Plover says:
    2 years ago

    This is no accident its a deliberate attempt by the UN/Globalists to trick everybody into surrendering their Freedom and Liberty to a One World Government under the UN/Socialists

    Reply

Comments are welcome! Those that add no discussion value may be removed.Cancel reply

Stay Connected On Social Media

gab-logo

Donate Today

Beating back the alarmist narrative takes time and money. Please donate today to help!

Recent Posts

  • Pope ice blessingPope Leo’s Arctic Ice Blessing Eroding Church’s Spiritual Mandate
    Oct 8, 2025
    Pope Leo’s Arctic ice blessing exposed how diving into climate politics erodes the Church’s spiritual authority and aligns it with radical agendas. […]
  • Offshore oil rigFederal Judge Rules Biden’s Massive Offshore Oil And Gas Ban Was Illegal
    Oct 8, 2025
    A federal judge ruled Biden overstepped his authority when he blocked offshore oil and gas drilling across 625 million acres, overturning his permanent ban. […]
  • Legislating emissionsMaryland Supreme Court Casts Doubt On State-Level Climate Lawsuits
    Oct 8, 2025
    Maryland’s high court signaled deep skepticism toward three climate lawsuits seeking to use state courts to make national energy policy. […]
  • CityscapeMeteorologist Slams The Guardian: Urban Heat, Not CO2, Driving City Temperature Rises
    Oct 7, 2025
    The Guardian blames fossil fuels for hotter cities, but data show urban heat islands, not CO2, are mostly driving city temperature rises. […]
  • earth fire burningNational Academies’ Climate Report: Another Tale Of Climate Change Bias
    Oct 7, 2025
    National Academies’ climate report downplays natural variability, exaggerates risks, and conflicts with DOE findings on extreme weather. […]
  • Biden pimping solarLabor Unions, Green Groups Sue EPA For Ending Biden-Era Solar Program
    Oct 7, 2025
    Labor unions and green energy groups are suing the EPA for canceling the Biden-era Solar for All program, which funnels billions from the GGRF. […]
  • power grid lines solarRon Barmby’s ‘Sunset On Net Zero’ Exposes The Flawed Economics Behind Climate Targets
    Oct 7, 2025
    Ron Barmby’s new book explains in understandable language the science and economics of why Net Zero CO2 is pointless, unachievable, and unfair. […]
  • Wind farm constructionIn The Name Of ‘Green’ Energy, Wind Farms Are Devastating Natural Habitats
    Oct 6, 2025
    Wind farms touted as green energy are triggering soil erosion, insect collapse, and biodiversity loss, raising doubts about their true environmental cost. […]
  • Pope Leo ice blessingPope Leo Joins Climate Cultists In Bizarre Ice-Blessing Ritual, Betrays Church’s Mission
    Oct 6, 2025
    Pope Leo joined climate cultists in a strange ice-blessing ceremony, sparking backlash from Christians and raising questions about Catholic priorities. […]
  • Abigail SpanbergerReport: Spanberger Winning Virginia Governor’s Race Would Add $500M a Year to Electricity Bills
    Oct 6, 2025
    Abigail Spanberger’s plan to rejoin the RGGI could add $500M a year to Virginia electricity bills, while Earle-Sears opposes any carbon tax. […]

Get Instant Email Notifications

Subscribe to receive a digest of daily stories, or get emailed once they're published. Check your Junk/Spam folder for a verification email.

Submit a tip

Please enter your email, so we know you're human.

Books You May Like

exposing great lie

Have a suggestion? Let us know! We swap out books based on your input. We participate in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. See here.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us

© Portions copyright Climate Change Dispatch

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us

© 2025 Climate Change Dispatch

Share via
  • Facebook
  • Like
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky
Share via
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky