The concluding chapter of the book critiques the current state of evidence produced by Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs), highlighting how biases in these models risk perpetuating existing injustices under the guise of seemingly neutral feasibility assessments. Three key biases are identified: a tendency to shift burdens to future generations, a deflection of responsibility from current major emitters, and a favoritism toward entrenched interests. These biases undermine the legitimacy of IAMs, as their pathways wield significant influence in shaping visions of the future. The chapter argues that IAMs obscure their normative dimension in two ways. First, value-laden assumptions made to render pathways “more realistic” often masquerade as neutral feasibility judgments. Second, presenting IAM outputs as feasibility assessments falsely conveys an image of objectivity, masking the models' normative dimensions. In response, the chapter emphasizes the need for ethically explicit scenarios incorporating justice considerations into scenario design. Ethicists must actively engage with IAMs to address these biases. Finally, revisiting the metaphor of modelers as mapmakers, the chapter proposes a type of value-explicit map design to be most fitting.