I think the entire article could be summarized as “historically there were a bunch of scenarios projecting possible future emissions. We have made progress on r

I think the entire article could be summarized as “historically there were a bunch of scenarios projecting possible future emissions. We have made progress on reducing emissions, so therefore we should emphasize some of the lower-emissions scenarios and retire the high-emissions scenarios.” It’s an eminently reasonable request, one that should be celebrated. I don’t know why it’s necessary to write thousands of words impugning the scientific integrity of climate science. What is much scarier to me are possible effects of GHGs that could make any emissions path much worse. Methane levels seem to be increasing, which could make current projections obsolete very quickly.