More than two decades ago, in 2004, Harvard professor Samuel Huntington warned in his book “Who Are We?” that America was facing a crisis of identity. He argued that a nation cannot remain united without a common culture, a common history, and a common understanding of itself. Remove those foundations, and a society inevitably fragments into competing tribes, interests, and identities.

Huntington pointed to the Anglo-Protestant Creed as the core of America’s unifying identity. He argued that America’s political institutions and civic ideals did not arise in a vacuum but were rooted in a culture shaped by Protestant Christianity. If Huntington identified the foundation of America’s shared identity, educator E.D. Hirsch explained how that identity was transmitted: through a common biblical literacy that provided Americans with a shared vocabulary, history, and moral framework. Without that shared knowledge, the cultural foundations of national identity inevitably begin to erode.

The Founding Fathers were immersed in biblical imagery. Benjamin Franklin famously proposed a national seal depicting Moses at the Red Sea. The Israelites’ exodus taught lessons about liberty, tyranny, divine providence, and national purpose.

The Bible shaped how Americans understood freedom, law, covenant, human dignity, and self-government. Even those who were not orthodox Christians were influenced by the biblical worldview that permeated colonial America.

But what happens when that biblical literacy disappears?

A nation that forgets its story loses its identity. And when a people lose their identity, they become fragmented. That is precisely what Huntington warned about. Americans increasingly identify themselves by race, class, political ideology, or special interest rather than by a common national story.

The consequences of this loss of historical memory extend beyond America’s understanding of itself. They also affect America’s understanding of one of the most important sources of its cultural inheritance: the Jewish people and the biblical story of Israel.

America’s affinity for the Jewish people did not begin with the modern State of Israel. For generations, Americans viewed Jewish history through the lens of Scripture and found in Israel’s story lessons about liberty, covenant, and national purpose.

As biblical literacy declines, Israel is increasingly viewed only through a contemporary political lens, ignoring its biblical and historical foundations. Meanwhile, anti-Semitism has risen across America and the West. Certainly, anti-Semitism has many causes. Yet it is difficult to ignore the connection between a society that no longer understands the Bible and one that increasingly misunderstands the Jewish people whose history fills its pages.

The rise of anti-Semitism and the weakening of support for Israel did not occur overnight. The ground was prepared over decades as biblical literacy declined, historical memory faded, and Americans became disconnected from the sources that once helped them understand both their own identity and the identity of the Jewish people.

As America celebrates its 250th anniversary, we have an opportunity not merely to commemorate our history but to recover it. We can rediscover the biblical foundations that shaped our nation and strengthen the shared identity Huntington warned was slipping away.

The Bible is not merely a religious text but one of the foundational documents of American civilization. To understand America, one must understand the Bible. And when that understanding is lost, we lose not only part of our history but part of our identity.

Tony Perkins is the president of the Family Research Council and executive editor of The Washington Stand. He also served two terms as a member of the Louisiana House of Representatives, and served as Chair of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom.

Source: What Happens When The Biblical Literacy That Shaped America’s Founding Disappears? – Harbinger’s Daily

The most alarming projections of climate change have been built upon a scenario known as RCP 8.5 and its successor, SSP5-8.5, which climate scientists now admit are “implausible” parameters.

For years, some of the most alarming projections of climate change were built upon a scenario known as RCP 8.5 and its successor, SSP5-8.5.

The public rarely heard those technical labels. Instead, they encountered the conclusions. Headlines warned of climate catastrophe. Studies projected severe economic losses, rising mortality, agricultural disruption, sea-level rise, and increasingly extreme weather. Governments cited such projections when developing policy. Courts referenced them in climate litigation. Businesses incorporated them into risk assessments.

Yet a significant development has received remarkably little public attention.

In the official CMIP7 ScenarioMIP design paper published in 2026, Detlef van Vuuren and more than forty climate-scenario researchers wrote:

For the 21st century, this range will be smaller than assessed before: on the high-end of the range, the CMIP6 high emission levels (quantified by SSP5-8.5) have become implausible….

The significance of that statement is difficult to overstate.

The shift became explicit in 2026 during the development of the CMIP7 climate-scenario framework that will help inform the IPCC’s Seventh Assessment Report. Researchers involved in designing the next generation of official climate scenarios concluded that the highest-emissions pathway widely used in previous climate assessments should no longer be regarded as a plausible representation of the world’s likely future.

This does not mean climate change has disappeared. Nor does it mean the IPCC has formally withdrawn SSP5-8.5 from climate modeling. The scenario remains available for analytical and stress-testing purposes.

What has changed is its status.

That distinction matters.

Now many of the scientists responsible for developing future climate scenarios appear to be reaching similar conclusions.

The implications extend far beyond an academic dispute among climate researchers.

RCP 8.5 was never merely another modelling exercise. It became one of the most influential scenarios in the history of climate science.

Thousands of academic papers relied upon it. Researchers used it to estimate future economic damages, heat-related mortality, agricultural disruption, sea-level impacts, and extreme weather losses. Studies based upon the scenario influenced adaptation planning, climate litigation, ESG investment frameworks, and government policy discussions throughout the Western world.

The distinction between a severe hypothetical scenario and a likely future became blurred.

This is where the controversy begins.

Imagine a pharmaceutical company promoting a drug using a risk model that later came to be regarded as unrealistic.

Imagine financial regulators restructuring the banking system around stress tests built upon assumptions later acknowledged to be implausible.

Imagine military planners justifying vast expenditures using threat projections that their own analysts no longer considered likely.

There would be serious questions.

How were the assumptions chosen?

How were the projections communicated?

Were policymakers given a balanced understanding of the uncertainties involved?

Yet when one of the most influential climate scenarios of the last decade loses credibility, there is remarkably little discussion.

There are no front-page reassessments by the media organisations that amplified the most alarming projections. There are few reflections from the institutions that used those projections to advocate sweeping policy changes. The climate narrative largely continues unchanged.

Consider some of the consequences.

Governments across the Western world declared climate emergencies.

Net-zero commitments were incorporated into legislation.

Public and private institutions adopted ESG frameworks.

Climate litigation expanded.

Schoolchildren were repeatedly told that they faced an existential crisis.

Entire sectors of the economy were reorganised around projected future risks.

Whether one supports or opposes those policies is ultimately a matter for democratic debate. The more immediate question is whether the assumptions underlying some of the most influential projections were communicated honestly and accurately.

There is nothing controversial about scientists revising a scenario when new evidence emerges. That is exactly what scientists should do. The question is why the public is hearing so little about a revision involving one of the most influential climate scenarios of the past decade.

The problem arises when institutions spend years promoting a particular narrative and then show little interest in examining whether the assumptions underpinning that narrative remain valid.

The issue is not simply climate science. It is what happens when worst-case scenarios and flawed assumptions migrate from technical modelling exercises into public policy, media narratives, court decisions, and investment strategies.

For years, projections derived from SSP5-8.5 were treated not merely as one possible future but increasingly as the future. The distinction matters.  Models are useful tools, but a model is not reality. Its conclusions depend upon assumptions, and when those assumptions change, the conclusions deserve re-examination.

That is precisely what appears to be happening with SSP5-8.5.

One of the most underreported climate stories of 2026 is that the scenario underpinning many of the most alarming projections is no longer regarded as plausible by those developing the next generation of climate models.

It may be the growing recognition among climate-scenario researchers themselves that one of the most influential pathways used to shape public understanding of climate change no longer represents a plausible picture of the future.

If so, policymakers, journalists, and citizens alike should be asking a simple question:

What else was built upon assumptions that no longer hold?

Mark Keenan | June 23, 2026

Mark Keenan is a former United Nations technical expert and an independent writer examining the intersection of science, technology, finance, and power. His work focuses on how dominant narratives are formed—and what lies outside them. He is the author of Climate CO2 Hoax, When Models Replace Reality, The Planned Pandemic, The Debt Machine, and Demonic Economics, where he examines the intersection of history, finance, and systems of power. His essays are read internationally and published on Substack (markgerardkeenan.substack.com). He writes to challenge assumptions, encourage critical inquiry, and invite readers to examine the structures shaping modern life. His work is archived at Reality Books.

Source: The Climate Scenario Behind A Decade of Alarmism Is No Longer Considered Plausible – American Thinker