The revision at issue was technical and narrow. Researchers moved away from a high-end emissions scenario that was always an outlier and has become less plausible as clean energy expanded, coal assumptions changed, and emissions expectations shifted. That update does not change the central findings of climate science or eliminate the severe risks that rise with continued warming.

• Researchers moved away from RCP8.5/SSP5-8.5 as a central worst-case pathway because the world has not followed the most extreme fossil fuel expansion trajectory. The revision reflects changed assumptions about future emissions, renewable deployment, and coal use, abandoning a scenario in which “countries continue to burn oil, gas and coal unabated, with little thought toward the atmospheric consequences,” The Washington Post reported, further explaining that scientists have published “a range of potential scenarios to capture the future shift in greenhouse gas emissions around the planet.” Scientist Zeke Hausfather said: “The scenarios we create today are different than the scenarios we created 15 years ago, because the world is different today than 15 years ago.” [The Washington Post, 5/19/26]
• Climate experts had already questioned the plausibility of RCP8.5’s coal-heavy assumptions. According to Carbon Brief, “The creators of RCP8.5 had not intended it to represent the most likely ‘business as usual’ outcome, emphasising that ’no likelihood or preference is attached’ to any of the specific scenarios. Its subsequent use as such represents something of a breakdown in communication between energy systems modellers and the climate modelling community.” [Carbon Brief, 8/21/19]
• The IPCC's latest report warns that every increment of warming increases climate risk. The IPCC states that “continued greenhouse gas emissions will lead to increasing global warming” and warns that risks and projected losses “escalate with every increment of global warming.” [IPCC, Climate Change 2023 Synthesis Report, 2023]
• The IPCC also warns that abrupt and potentially irreversible climate changes become more likely as warming increases. The report specifically cites risks tied to permafrost thaw, ice-sheet collapse, ocean circulation disruption, and ecosystem loss. [IPCC, Climate Change 2023 Synthesis Report, 2023]

In late April, climate contrarian Roger Pielke Jr. framed the revision as proof that climate warnings and policy responses were exaggerated, and Trump’s May 16 post helped push that argument into the right-wing media bloodstream, where conservative outlets treated the change as evidence that climate models, public spending, and emissions policy had rested on inflated assumptions.

• Climate contrarian Roger Pielke Jr. declared that “RCP8.5 Is Officially Dead” and called the revision “an absolutely huge development in climate science” with “lasting impacts across research and policy.” Pielke argued that the discarded high-end scenario had “dominated climate research, assessment, and policy” for decades and claimed that research and policy built around the projections were “built on a foundation of sand.” [The Honest Broker, 4/29/26; DeSmog blog, accessed 6/1/26]
• The New York Post framed the revision as a climate group “revers[ing] course on doomsday predictions” and said the IPCC had “quietly adjusted” a framework that “underpinned” warnings about “terrifying consequences” from greenhouse gas emissions. The article also amplified Trump’s claim that the IPCC had admitted its projections were “WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!” [New York Post, 5/17/26]
• The New York Post editorial board argued that the revision showed climate warnings had done “untold damage” to the public, the economy, and “the average man’s pocketbook.” The editorial claimed the IPCC had “quietly discarded” dire scenarios, called past climate warnings “overblown from the start,” and argued that climate policy had wasted trillions while driving up energy costs. [New York Post, 5/18/26]
• National Review argued the scenario revision showed “the science” had spoken against “climate alarmism.” Although the editors acknowledged that the paper’s explanation for RCP8.5 and SSP5-8.5 becoming less plausible “can be seen as a justification of current climate policy rather than a rejection of it,” the editors still claimed that activists, academics, journalists, and politicians had used an “out-of-date and flawed hypothetical to pursue an extreme climate agenda.” [National Review, 5/20/26]

Fox News and Fox Business carried the right-wing media frame into cable coverage, arguing that climate warnings had been used to justify unnecessary costs and that climate policy had been built on false assumptions. Across multiple programs, Fox personalities and guests  treated the IPCC’s scenario update not as a narrow change to one high-end emissions pathway, but as evidence against climate policy and public climate investment.

• Fox News host Brian Kilmeade hosted climate contrarian Michael Shellenberger, who overstated the IPCC scenario revision by claiming “the most catastrophic scenario of really high emissions is impossible.” He then used the revision to claim that climate science faced a broader “credibility crisis” while attacking former Vice President Al Gore, California wildfire attribution, and the left’s supposed need for “apocalyptic” narratives to “gain more control over society.” [Fox News, One Nation with Brian Kilmeade, 5/17/26; DeSmog, accessed 6/1/26]
• Fox News host Greg Gutfeld used the IPCC revision to frame the Inflation Reduction Act as climate fraud. On The Five, Gutfeld claimed the United Nations had “rescinded all dire predictions” about climate change, argued that “corrupt forecasts” had justified “$400 billion in climate provisions,” and called the IRA “the biggest fraud against the American public in history.” [Fox News, The Five, 5/19/26] 
• Fox News host Sean Hannity asserted that a “top U.N.-backed climate change panel is now waving the white flag of surrender” and “quietly admitting that the Earth will not in fact be destroyed by climate change.” Hannity then read Trump’s claim that climate activism had been used to scare Americans, push “horrible energy policies,” and fund “bogus research programs” tied to a “green new scam,” before bringing on The Federalist elections correspondent Brianna Lyman, who argued that Democrats used climate policy to “line the coffers of their friends” and “control your lives.” [Fox News, Hannity, 5/19/26]
• On Fox Business’ The Big Money Show, co-host Taylor Riggs claimed the U.N. had “quietly backed away” from “extreme climate doomsday scenarios” that were used to justify “higher energy costs, higher grocery bills, and sweeping policy changes.” Riggs added that “an apology would be nice” and “maybe a refund would be better” after saying the U.N. now considers the worst-case scenarios “implausible.” [Fox Business, The Big Money Show, 5/20/26]
• Gutfeld used the IPCC’s move away from its most extreme warming scenario to claim that “climate hysteria” was “the greatest white-collar scam” and to attack the Inflation Reduction Act. During the May 20 episode of Gutfeld!, Gutfeld said Americans “paid for the fake fear by the billions” and claimed the IRA was “really about funneling billions into a massive scam.” [Fox News, Gutfeld!, 5/20/26]
• Fox Business’ Varney & Co. tied the IPCC scenario revision to U.S. opposition to international climate action. Correspondent Lauren Simonetti reported that the U.S. had voted against a U.N. climate resolution recognizing countries’ responsibilities to protect people from planet-warming emissions, saying the administration had called it “an effort to rewrite international law to attack American energy.” Guest host David Asman then added that the “U.N. did back off of some previous estimates that turned out to be dead wrong about climate change.” [Fox Business, Varney & Co., 5/22/26]
• Fox Business host Stuart Varney used the IPCC’s narrow scenario revision to suggest broader climate concerns were exaggerated. During the May 27 episode of Varney & Co., Varney claimed that “for decades the climate crowd has jammed climate catastrophe down our throats,” then pointed to the U.N. climate committee’s worst-case scenario now being considered “implausible.” [Fox Business, Varney & Co., 5/27/26]
• Power the Future founder Daniel Turner used the IPCC scenario revision to call for climate scientists to lose funding and credibility. During the May 29 episode of Varney & Co., Turner called for a “reckoning,” claiming the revision was not “just a mistake in climate calculations,” but proof that climate scientists “did great, great damage to the world.” In addition to losing funding and credibility, Turner said scientists should be “forced to go around to schools and tell young people, You don’t have to be worried about climate change.” [Fox Business, Varney & Co., 5/29/26; DeSmog, accessed 6/1/26]

Fox and the broader right-wing news ecosystem are treating evidence that the world moved away from one worst-case emissions pathway as proof that climate warnings were exaggerated. But the IPCC did not reverse course on climate science or abandon the reality of escalating climate risk. Researchers narrowed the use of one extreme warming scenario because the world has not remained fully locked into the coal-heavy fossil fuel trajectory that scenario assumed, even as dangerous warming and major climate risks continue to intensify. Fox collapsed that distinction, letting the network have it both ways: It can spend years promoting and defending fossil fuel use that continues to make the world more dangerous while using evidence that the world moved partly away from one worst-case scenario to argue the warnings were never real and climate action was always unnecessary.