IPCC RCP8.5 Model Criticized for Emissions Inaccuracy, Skepticism Grows

Recent critiques challenge the mainstream climate change narrative, particularly criticizing the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for its use of the RCP8.5 'business as usual' model, which is increasingly seen as unrealistic and falsified based on actual emissions data. Chris Morrison and Roger Pielke Jr. highlight that RCP8.5's assumptions about future coal use and temperature increases are not supported by reality, a stance reinforced by President Trump's executive order banning its use by federal scientists. Meanwhile, Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. Knappenberger advocate for a 'lukewarming' perspective, suggesting that global warming is real but more gradual and less catastrophic than often portrayed, criticizing alarmism driven by funding and media narratives. Larry Bell adds a political dimension by arguing that the global warming agenda is motivated more by power and financial interests than by objective science, accusing the media and some scientists of fear-mongering and data manipulation. Additionally, concerns about corruption have emerged in the solar power sector in California, with a Boston University study revealing various abuses and governance issues that could undermine trust in renewable energy efforts. These diverse viewpoints collectively underscore ongoing debates over climate science accuracy, policy motivations, and the implementation of clean energy strategies.