Screenshots from Fox Business and Fox News about the retirement of the RCP 8.5 climate scenario.Is climate change actually a big deal anymore? Or is everything, like, totally chill now?Earlier this spring, the answer across conservative politics and media was a resounding: It’s chill.The reason, according to Trump and a flurry of conservative coverage, was that scientists had finally admitted their most alarming climate scenarios were wrong, and that nothing bad was actually going to happen.The blitz was inspired by a real piece of news. Back in April, an international group of scientists announced updated scenarios for studying future climate change. In that update, they decided to leave out an extreme worst-case scenario called RCP8.5—which explored what would happen if the world massively expanded its use of coal and other fossil fuels throughout this century, and didn’t significantly expand renewable energy. The scientists said they no longer considered that worst-case future to be feasible, citing falling renewable energy costs, climate policies, and recent emissions trends.If you read that and thought, ‘Hooray! That sounds like good news,’ that’s because it was good news. It meant we’d made progress in avoiding an extremely dangerous future—and scientists were updating the scenarios they prioritize studying to reflect that. (The catch: scientists also stopped using the best-case scenario where we completely avoid the worst impacts. So it wasn’t all good).But the vast majority of conservative media twisted what this news meant. At Fox News, Greg Gutfeld claimed scientists had ‘rescinded all dire predictions’ about climate change. Sean Hannity said a UN-backed panel was admitting the ‘Earth will not in fact be destroyed by climate change.’ And on Fox Business, guest Daniel Turner said scientists should visit schools and tell young people: ‘You don’t have to be worried about climate change.’This should go without saying, and it’s been said other places, but I’ll just repeat it: The extreme worst-case future becoming unlikely does not mean climate change is chill now. It means we’ve made some progress in limiting how bad things could get. However, as climate scientist Kate Marvel told me in today’s podcast episode (linked above), there’s still A LOT of room between ‘the most dangerous climate future imaginable’ and ‘no serious danger at all.’ And scientists are still considering serious, dangerous, probable, climate futures. It’s also worth noting that RCP8.5 was not ‘retracted,’ as many outlets are describing it. ‘Retracted’ implies that scientists withdrew something because it was wrong. That’s not what happened. RCP8.5 was not a prediction of the future. It was a projection, a ‘what if’ scenario that asked: If greenhouse gas concentrations rose this extreme amount, what would happen to the climate? Deciding that those concentrations are unlikely to occur does not mean the calculations of their climate consequences were wrong. It means the assumptions about future emissions no longer look plausible.But why, you might ask, would conservative media characterize the RCP 8.5 news this way, as a ‘prediction’ that was ‘retracted,’ meaning ‘you don’t have to be worried’ about climate change anymore? That, my friends, is why I’m revisiting this months-old issue. I asked Climate Action Against Disinformation, a coalition tracking climate misinformation, to investigate the financial connections between the voices pushing this narrative and the fossil fuel industry. Its resulting report, published today, Spinning Renewable Success Into a Climate Conspiracy, documents how many of the voices that pushed misleading narratives about RCP 8.5 are connected to fossil fuel money.HEATED is a 100 percent reader-funded outlet dedicated to unearthing the financial incentives behind climate delay. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a subscriber today.Among the connections documented in the report:Roger Pielke Jr. and the American Enterprise Institute: Pielke, a political scientist, promoted the idea that RCP8.5 was ‘retracted’ through AEI, interviews, and a Washington Post opinion piece. His employer, AEI, has received $3.6 million from ExxonMobil since 1998, according to records compiled by ExxonSecrets, and $2.17 million from Koch-related foundations between 2004 and 2017, according to Greenpeace’s funding database. John Stossel: Pielke also appeared in a Stossel video discussing the climate debate. Stossel’s production company, JFS Productions, received $1,541,715 in media contracts from the Charles Koch Institute between 2017 and 2019. Koch foundations separately gave $397,688 to the Center for Independent Thought, the nonprofit behind Stossel’s media projects, between 2007 and 2019. Researcher Connor Gibson documented those payments using IRS filings.The Global Warming Policy Foundation: Pielke discussed the ‘death of RCP8.5’ in an interview with this UK organization. Its American fundraising arm received $210,525 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation in 2018 and 2020, according to reporting on its finances. The Scaife fortune partly originated in oil, and the foundation holds energy stocks. GWPF disputes that these donations constitute fossil fuel industry funding, arguing that inherited wealth and a foundation’s diversified investments do not establish a commercial energy interest.Marc Morano, Gabriella Hoffman, and CFACT: Morano discussed the story on Joe Piscopo’s radio show, while Hoffman hosted a podcast episode about it. Both work for CFACT, which received $582,000 from ExxonMobil beginning in 1998, according to ExxonSecrets records compiled by DeSmog. Bankruptcy records also show a $5,000 contribution from coal company Murray Energy in October 2018.GB News, The Spectator, and Steven Koonin: The report identifies GB News coverage citing Pielke and Koonin, alongside a Spectator Australia Facebook post. GB News co-owner and Spectator owner Paul Marshall runs Marshall Wace, whose hedge fund held $2.2 billion in fossil fuel investments in June 2023, including $213 million in Chevron, according to DeSmog’s analysis of SEC filings. Koonin’s connection is separate: Before serving in the Obama administration, he was BP’s chief scientist from 2004 to 2009.The Daily Caller: The website covered Trump’s ‘victory lap’ over the scenario update. Its affiliated nonprofit, the Daily Caller News Foundation, received nearly $1 million from two Charles Koch foundations in 2017, accounting for almost 40 percent of its annual revenue, according to Sludge’s reporting. The documented funding went to the nonprofit news operation, which is distinct from the commercial website.The Daily Wire and Jason Isaac: The Daily Wire published RCP8.5 opinion pieces by Ryan Maue and Jason Isaac on consecutive days. Fracking billionaire Farris Wilks provided $4.7 million to help launch the outlet in 2015. Jason Isaac leads the American Energy Institute, an organization explicitly devoted to promoting methane gas.The Daily Signal: Isaac also published an RCP8.5 article here. The outlet began as a Heritage Foundation project. Heritage historically received $780,000 from ExxonMobil beginning in 1998 and $6.13 million from Koch foundations between 1997 and 2017, according to funding records compiled by DeSmog. Breitbart: The outlet amplified Trump’s RCP8.5 claims on May 17. The following day, it published sponsored content promoting Chevron. Now, these financial connections don’t establish that a fossil fuel company paid any particular author to write any particular article. What they show is that fossil fuel companies, fortunes, and investments help support the institutions and platforms giving these arguments a megaphone. I’m also not saying everything in every one of these articles is false. Some articles include valid criticisms of how RCP8.5 has been used in research, mainstream media, and science communication—particularly how it was often presented as the ‘business as usual’ scenario, which it was not. Climate researchers themselves have criticized that framing. But that’s a very different argument from ‘scientists admitted climate change isn’t a big deal.’ And my point is that fossil fuel money helps amplify that narrative, giving it more reach, repetition, and apparent credibility than it would have in a healthy, truly independent media ecosystem. And making that minority sound louder is the whole point, Philip Newell, who works with the coalition, told me.Fossil fuel companies ‘don’t need a whole ton of people to believe’ that climate change is no longer a big deal, he said. ‘They need just enough people to justify the political inaction to continue.’You can hear more from Philip about the report—and from Kate Marvel about what the science actually says—in today’s podcast episode, linked above.Subscribe nowFossil fuel money pays for a lot of the voices telling you climate change is no big deal. Your money pays for HEATED to investigate them.We don’t take advertising, sponsorships, or grants. Paid subscriptions fund our reporting, our podcast, and the time it takes to follow the money behind the messages you hear every day.If you want more of this work—and can afford it—please become a paid subscriber. And if you already are one: Thank you. You make this possible.Subscribe now