Mhaze presents facts. The usual suspects react with ideology-driven gibberish.

IF you're going to claim that my post "demonstrates his lack of comprehension skills and lack of Scientific literacy" it'd probably make sense to show in your posts that alleged lack of comprehension and scientific literacy. Instead you write two further posts which basically confirm what I wrote but try to give it the standard alarmist slant. I don't think that rates very high on the logic scale.

"I wonder if mhaze is getting his Scientific understanding from Trump?"
I don't know what Trump's got to do with this except that he appears to be living in your head rent free. But just to clear things up I didn't get this from Trump or MAGA or any other of the various bogeymen that seem to keep you awake at night. Instead, the issue has been widely covered in most media which still has a degree of integrity concerning all things climate.

For example (and this is just one of over a dozen articles I've seen on this).... http://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/rcp85-is-officially-dead

NB: Roger Pielke has been fighting the good fight on RCP8.5 and its derivatives for quite a long time now.

The more interesting issue now that the alarmist community is acceding to the logic as to the implausibility of these outrageous scenarios, is why now?

The answer: AI. The people like Gates who were the primary funders of the CO2 scam have now realised that they need to burn carbon in order to generate the power to cool their AI and therefore CO2 needs to be rehabilitated.

Expect more of this in the coming years. Which of course leaves politicians who built a career around demonising CO2 rather out on a limb. That'll be funny to watch

What about that new Guzman Y Gomez fast food chain that opened up a while back?

Google? Does eating Guzman Y Gomez create increased flatulence?

AI Overview
Yes, eating at Guzman Y Gomez (GYG) can lead to increased flatulence for some people, as is common with many high-fiber, bean-heavy, or Mexican-style diets.

Maybe the climate advocates can go and protest excess emissions down there?

WTF?

mhaze states" it'd probably make sense to show in your posts that alleged lack of comprehension and scientific literacy."

Which of course is exactly what I did, of course.

"The RCPs were succeeded in 2017 by the “shared socioeconomic pathways”, or SSPs." mhaze is just 9 years behind on the information supplied by mhaze's own source.

But then Trump and a sway of other regressive "news" sources are incorrectly using the same term so I can see how mhaze has easily become befuddled.

Then there is this unravelling:

mhaze claimes "But the alarmists love dire warnings and therefore claimed RCP8.5 was the most likely outcome." - but of course without pointing to where this has ever been used as a plausible outcome because, you know, it never was and was never its purpose anyway.

Then there is this "over the last 5 years over 10,000 papers have been written based on RCP8.5"

So where are these 10,000 papers BASED on something that everyone knows:"Global emissions have not followed the trajectory required for SSP5-8.5." and is common knowledge that “It’s never been a likely outcome.”

Seems like Science is working the way Science works - what a surprise.

Oh so we're so desperate to find fault that WTF is now playing with semantics - RCP v. SSP. They are essentially the same thing so either term is valid. WTF seems to think the IPCC reports are holy writ so it may pain him to find out that the most recent report (AR6) uses the term RCP well over 200 times in its various sections and uses RCP and SSP as virtually interchangeable. Still, when you've got little of substance to say, semantics is as good a fall back as any.

As to recent papers that use the most pessimistic scenarios:

"Future Scenarios of Global Urban Expansion and Carbon Emissions" (Xu et al., 2025)

(Kahraman et al., 2025)

(Sarofim et al., 2024, Nature Communications)

Bousfield et al., 2024, Nature Climate Change)

(Davariashtiyani et al., 2023/2024, Scientific Reports)

(Naughten et al., 2023, Nature Climate Change)

And that's after a cursory check. "Critics like Roger Pielke Jr. have noted that ~25 new studies per day in 2024 still reference or use RCP8.5, bringing the total literature count well over 45,000."

It is said that science (particularly climate science) advances one funeral at a time. I suspect that RCP8.5, even though its now fully debunked, will still be used for several years to come.

WTF?

mhaze uses his his mental contortions and undergraduate brain to rework definitions yet again.

There is a huge difference between referencing something in a research paper and basing a whole research paper on something - but you know - comprehension and stuff.

Essentially what we have here is the regressive right-wing media picking up on a scrap that falls from the table and wants to turn that into a banquet of Science bashing. mhaze then thinks this is a "got ya" moment and thinks it's an "unravelling" of decades of Scientific research.

The great unravelling that mhaze is salivating over comes down to this:

Scientists don't use (and will not use) something for a purpose it wasn't designed for and has become superfluous anyway.

Some unravelling.

But as many on OLO cannot understand is that Science is working the way that Science works.