Climate Change: Now UN climate experts admit climate change won’t destroy Earth tomorrow

New York Post Editorial Board

Published May 18, 2026, 7:58 p.m. ET

Apocalyptic climate-change predictions were box-office gold for Hollywood but they did untold damage to the public psyche, economy and the average man’s pocketbook. 

Now the United Nations’ influential climate change committee has quietly discarded the dire temperature-rise scenarios used in two previous reports predicting horrific consequences of global warming if greenhouse emissions weren’t curbed.

For years, lefty outfits — based on dubious climate science — screamed about the coming climate catastrophe: The New York Times warned that “Climate Change Is Harming The Planet Faster Than We Can Adapt,” “Climate Change Is Speeding Toward Catastrophe” and “A Hotter Future Is Certain.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) insisted the world would end by 2030 if we didn’t address climate change — by which she meant waste trillions on the Green New Deal and return to Stone Age-style living.

Democrats went full-tilt in accepting the UN-backed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report’s forecasts of a dramatic rise in sea levels, rapidly melting glaciers, global crop failures and even the ultimate extinction of mankind. 

But let’s face it: The UN scenarios were overblown from the start, and the left’s climate crusaders hyped them even more.

https://nypost.com/2026/05/18/opinion/can-we-all-get-a-refund-now-un-climate-experts-admit-climate-change-wont-destroy-earth-tomorrow

AI Response:

The recent development you’re referencing is the UN/IPCC quietly moving away from its most extreme “worst-case” emissions scenario, often called RCP8.5 (or SSP5-8.5). This scenario assumed a massive continued rise in coal use with little to no mitigation or clean energy progress — something that hasn’t materialized due to cheaper renewables, policy shifts, and economic realities. Researchers now call it implausible for future projections.

What this actually means

• Not an admission that “climate change is a hoax”: The core physics remain — CO₂ and other greenhouse gases warm the planet, and human emissions are the dominant driver of recent warming (~1.1–1.2°C since pre-industrial). Impacts like more intense heatwaves, sea level rise, and shifts in extremes are real and growing.
• But extreme doom narratives relied heavily on this scenario: Media, activists, and some policymakers often highlighted the tail-end horrors (4–5°C+ warming by 2100, civilization-ending impacts) as if they were the most likely outcome. Current trajectories (with existing policies and tech trends) point more toward 2–3°C by 2100 — serious, but not “Earth destroyed tomorrow” or uninhabitable hellscapes for humanity as a whole.
• Bill Gates and others have noted: Climate change brings real risks (especially to poorer nations), but it won’t end human civilization or make most of Earth uninhabitable. Adaptation, innovation, and continued emissions reductions matter.

This adjustment aligns with long-standing critiques: RCP8.5 was useful for stress-testing high-end risks but was overused as a “business as usual” baseline, inflating alarm. Emissions have risen, but not as explosively as the extreme path assumed.

The “refund” part — valid frustration

Skepticism of the policy response is reasonable:

• Trillions spent on subsidies, mandates, and net-zero targets with mixed results on global emissions (developing nations dominate future growth).
• Repeated failed apocalyptic deadlines (“12 years left,” “by 2030,” etc.) eroded trust.
• Economic costs of rushed transitions hit energy prices and reliability in places like Europe and parts of the US/Canada.
• Earlier high-profile papers projecting extreme damages (e.g., the retracted Nature study on $38T annual losses) amplified the panic before scrutiny.

Science self-corrects (slowly), but the political/media complex often doesn’t. Alarm sold policies, fear mobilized voters, and careers were built on urgency.

Balanced view going forward

Climate change is a manageable risk, not an existential cliff-edge for tomorrow. Prioritizing:

• Adaptation (resilient infrastructure, agriculture, coastal protection) — often highly cost-effective.
• Innovation (nuclear, advanced geothermal, storage, carbon removal, adaptation tech) over punitive carbon taxes or blanket fossil fuel bans.
• Realistic pathways: Current policies put us nowhere near 8.5; focus on the plausible range while lifting energy poverty.

Humanity has thrived across a wide temperature range historically. Wealthier, more technologically advanced societies are far more resilient. The biggest near-term threats to many people remain poverty, energy access, and bad governance — not climate alone.