WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump recently criticized the reliability of climate change forecasts in a social media message that mischaracterized scientific research, modeling updates and international climate policy discussions.
The United Nations regularly publishes comprehensive scientific assessments examining current trends and future possibilities regarding human-driven climate change. Researchers periodically revise some scenarios used for future forecasting. A critical factor determining the extent and consequences of coming climate change involves carbon dioxide emissions from burning coal, oil and natural gas. Higher carbon pollution leads to increased global warming, so researchers build their forecasts around various potential scenarios.
These scenarios sparked the president’s weekend social media message. Here’s an examination of the facts:
TRUMP: “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!”
THE FACTS: Trump referenced forecasting models from 2011 developed by scientists connected to the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that received updates in research published in a scientific publication this spring. The revision determined that the previous worst-case scenario — known as RCP8.5 — was unlikely.
These modifications led scientists and non-scientists who minimize climate change dangers or question climate science to attack the international climate research panel’s decades of work on social media, which earned a Nobel Prize. The changes also prompted leading climate researchers to explain why including improbable scenarios remains necessary and to highlight that the revision also shows how dramatically the world has expanded cleaner energy usage, including solar and wind power and electric vehicles. This has caused rapidly rising carbon emissions to essentially level off.
Even during its development 15 years ago, that worst-case scenario remained unlikely — other scenarios were deemed more probable. However, the most extreme scenario stayed possible if the world pursued heavy fossil fuel consumption, particularly continued extensive coal use, the dirtiest fossil fuel. It forecast end-of-century warming around 8 degrees Fahrenheit (4.5 degrees Celsius) above mid-1800s levels.
This wasn’t fear-mongering, stated climate researcher Detlef Van Vuuren of Utrecht University, lead author of the new research outlining future scenarios, and Johan Rockström, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.
Even with minimal projected warming “we enter danger,” Rockström stated. “We enter danger both from extreme events (such as floods, heat waves and droughts) but also from risks of crossing tipping points” such as loss of coral and glaciers.
The now-abandoned scenario represented “a relevant low-probability high-risk scenario” serving to help governments “be prepared with the possible risks of climate change. For instance, living in the Netherlands — a country possibly vulnerable to flooding — I would not like my government to only look at the best-guess scenario, but also explore what the risks are,” Van Vuuren stated.
“The risks of climate change have not disappeared. The good news is that we did not follow the most dramatic emission pathway. However, we are still heading towards a future with significant climate impacts; a future that we should avoid,” Van Vuuren added.
It represents a future of suffering and increased deaths, but was never about completely destroying the planet, stated Cornell University climate researcher Natalie Mahowald.
Nine out of 10 climate researchers interviewed by The Associated Press stated the worst-case scenario that was abandoned seemed unlikely but still possible when initially released. However, they noted this has changed due to rapid growth in carbon-free wind and solar energy technologies that has made them occasionally cheaper than fossil fuels.
Eliminating the old worst-case scenario occurs because “we are making progress in slowing climate change with a well-established affordable range of solutions — especially, solar, wind, battery storage, and electrified transportation,” stated University of Michigan environment dean Jonathan Overpeck.
TRUMP: “My administration will always be based on TRUTH, SCIENCE, and FACT!”
THE FACTS: A major Trump administration climate action was initially supported by a document presented as scientific research that scientists called inaccurate and was later abandoned.
In July 2025, the Trump administration announced it would overturn an Obama-era scientific determination by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that climate change threatened America’s public health. Supporting this decision, the Department of Energy released a 151-page document by its Climate Working Group, claiming climate change wasn’t significantly harmful.
Numerous scientists informed the AP that the Trump justification document contained errors, bias and misrepresentations.
The National Academy of Sciences, established by President Abraham Lincoln to counsel the federal government on scientific matters, released a prompt assessment challenging the Trump document and stating “human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases and resulting climate change harm the health of people in the United States.” Additionally, 85 scientists wrote a letter declaring the Trump assertions “are misleading or outright wrong.”
When the Trump administration formally reversed the EPA endangerment determination in February, it excluded the scientific justification from the Department of Energy that scientists had challenged.
