Given the seriousness of this issue, and that the criticism seems to be getting quite a lot of traction, I thought it important to read the original paper that presents a perspective on the next generation of Earth system model scenarios. As far as I can see, it is not assigning the highest priority to the most extreme scenarios. If also seems to have considered most of the criticisms of scenarios, discusses the different uses for scenarios, including high-end pathways, and highlights that it would be beneficial to separate high forcing pathways for scientific purposes from the more policy-oriented framing pathway categories.
So, once again, it seems that the criticism is - at best - wildly exaggerated, or - at worst - completely misrepresents what's being done. Of course, the latter would probably not surprise some people. It's always been pretty clear that much of the criticism of RCP8.5 was motivated more by a desire to find something to criticise, than by any desire to be constructive. The same seems to be the case here. To be fair, if you're a bad faith actor motivated by a desire to simply find something to criticise, it must be tricky to know how to respond if those you're criticising actually take your initial criticisms seriously.
