UN Climate Scientists Abandon Doomsday Predictions as Trump Declares Victory

Clear Facts

• UN-backed climate scientists are moving away from the most extreme global warming scenario (RCP8.5/SSP5-8.5) previously used in climate modeling
• Researchers say the worst-case scenario has become “implausible” based on renewable energy trends and current emissions data
• President Trump called the shift vindication of his longstanding criticism of climate alarmism and Democratic energy policies

President Donald Trump celebrated a major shift in climate science Saturday after UN-backed researchers acknowledged that their most catastrophic global warming predictions no longer reflect reality.

“GOOD RIDDANCE! After 15 years of Dumocrats promising that ‘Climate Change’ is going to destroy the Planet, the United Nations TOP Climate Committee just admitted that its own projections (RCP8.5) were WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

The president didn’t hold back in his criticism of how Democrats have used climate fears to advance their political agenda.

“For far too long Climate Activism has been used by Dumocrats to scare Americans, push horrible Energy Polices, and fund BILLIONS into their bogus research programs,” he continued.

“Unlike the Dumocrats, who use Climate Alarmism nonsense to push their GREEN NEW SCAM, my Administration will always be based on TRUTH, SCIENCE, and FACT!”

The announcement marks a significant retreat from the doomsday scenarios that have dominated climate discourse for years. Scientists affiliated with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are phasing out what’s known as the RCP8.5 scenario — their worst-case projection that predicted catastrophic temperature increases, devastating sea level rises, global crop failures, and even extinction events comparable to the demise of the dinosaurs.

According to researchers writing in the journal Geoscientific Model Development, this extreme scenario no longer represents a plausible future given current trends in renewable energy costs, emissions patterns, and existing climate policies.

“For the 21st century, this range will be smaller than assessed before: on the high-end of the range, the high emission levels (quantified by SSP5-8.5) have become implausible, based on trends in the costs of renewables, the emergence of climate policy and recent emission trends.”

The development vindicates Trump’s consistent skepticism of climate alarmism. Last September at the U.N. General Assembly in New York, the president called climate change activism a “con job.”

“It’s the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world, in my opinion,” Trump said at the time.

“All of these predictions made by the United Nations and many others, often for bad reasons, were wrong.”

“They were made by stupid people that have cost their country’s fortunes and given those same countries no chance for success,” he continued.

Democrats predictably attacked the president’s comments. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called his remarks “total disinformation” during the Clinton Global Initiative in New York.

“You know yesterday at the U.N., President Trump said, ‘Climate change is a hoax,’ because it’s just total disinformation,” Clinton said.

“It’s a statement that is just not true, and yet being propagated.”

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin defended the president’s position in an interview, pointing to the real-world costs of left-wing climate policies.

“The president is absolutely right and we’ve seen it in the name of climate change, these left wing policies willing to cause extreme economic pain for people who can at least afford it,” he said.

The shift away from apocalyptic climate predictions raises serious questions about the trillions of dollars spent and the economic damage inflicted on American families in the name of fighting a crisis that scientists are now admitting was overstated. For years, conservative voices have warned that climate alarmism was being used to justify massive government spending, energy restrictions, and regulatory overreach that hurt working Americans while enriching green energy special interests.

Now, with the UN’s own climate experts backing away from their most extreme scenarios, those warnings appear increasingly justified.

Let us know what you think, please share your thoughts in the comments below.