# Related Trends Back to [[Topics/Climate Change Science and Policy Debate/Climate Change Science and Policy Debate|Climate Change Science and Policy Debate]] ## 1. "Worst case retired, so no crisis" The retirement of RCP8.5 / SSP5-8.5 from CMIP7 (2025–26) has become a major contrarian talking point. The scientific story is that high-end emissions became less likely, thanks partly to cheap renewables and slower coal growth, which is good news. It does not mean low warming: the new High case is ~3.3–3.5°C. Watch for posts that switch between "implausible scenario" and "no warming problem". This sits squarely where Lomborg-style policy arguments (Pielke Jr, Hausfather) meet outright denial (Clack). ## 2. Deep-time framing "Earth was 10°C warmer in the past" or "we are in an ice age" posts cite real paleoclimate papers (Judd 2024 especially) and drop their CO₂ conclusions. Clack's Oct 1, Oct 9, Oct 12 and Oct 23 posts all reuse this frame. ## 3. CO₂ as plant food and greening NASA greening imagery (Zhu 2016) is a perennial meme. The accurate part is the CO₂ fertilisation effect. The omissions are the land-use share (Chen 2019), nutrient limits, and the fact that greening does not offset heat, drought or sea-level rise. ## 4. IPCC process turmoil (AR7) The IPCC-65 suspension on Oct 16, 2026, over the timetable and budget, is being retold as the science collapsing. Expect further misreadings as AR7 scheduling continues. ## 5. Energy-security and "vandalism" narratives Posts frame coal exits (Hambach), wind-farm ageing and China's clean-tech dominance (>80% of PV supply-chain stages) as Western self-harm. Some facts are right (China's PV share, China's 32% of emissions); others are inflated (Hambach "1 billion tonnes"; wind "collapse"). ## 6. Politicisation and state amplification On Jan 26, 2025, Argentine President Javier Milei reposted a Clack post with "CAMBIO CLIMÁTICO Otra mentira que se cae…" (translation: "CLIMATE CHANGE Another lie that falls…"). Argentine climatologists (Leandro Díaz, Carolina Vera) publicly criticised it (La Nación, Jan 27, 2025). ISD/CAAD had already named Clack among top climate-denial accounts in Jan 2023. ## 7. Policy-cost debate (the Lomborg lane) Headline cost figures (McKinsey's $275T) circulate without context: they are cumulative spending, much of which would happen anyway. Cost-benefit critics (Lomborg) and mainstream economists disagree about the *optimal* pace of cuts, not about the physics. Lomborg's posts and books are in [[Authors/@BjornLomborg/BjornLomborg-x-profile|@BjornLomborg]]: see the [[Authors/@BjornLomborg/Topical List|Topical List]] (T3 "Cost of climate policy"; T2 energy prices) and the [[Authors/@BjornLomborg/Books/Books Overview|Books Overview]] (*False Alarm*, *Best Things First*). In Oct 2026 his feed was dominated by record-low global fire (39 of 74 items), plus Danish wind vs. nuclear and the cost of Denmark's new climate programme.