Cancun sun speeds decay of global warming charade

[waldo]

both India & China are signatories to the Copenhagen Accord... why spout off non-truths? The rational for India & China's placement within the Kyoto Accord was sound when drafted... no countries, including India & China, expect similar placement within any future agreements. Notwithstanding, of course, the most significant outsourcing of emissions by developed countries today.

Developed countries are "outsourcing" more than a third of their carbon emissions associated with products and services to other countries, researchers say.

A study of trade data found that some countries in Western Europe have more than half of their total carbon dioxide emissions occurring elsewhere, especially in developing countries such as China.

It was only sound in within the minds of left wing activists who see climate change as a tool to promote their broader political agenda. In fact, the reason the US senate voted 97-0 against Kyoto was becuase they rejected the placement of China and India with in the Kyoto Accord.

left wing activists! Your exaggerated desperation shines on... yes, of course, all other industrialized nations signed on, but not the good ole USA... to what would have been a "minuscule" 6% reduction below 1990 levels. Of course, Bush Republicans ruled the day, notwithstanding the U.S. position as the world's leading emitter. That China & India exemption was intended to only be for the "first round" of the Kyoto Protocol... in recognition that they were not significant participants in the initial wave of industrialized emission and that their economies, at the time, would have been subject to a disproportionate influence given their burgeoning developing nation status. In any case, that link I posted above sums up well what transpired over time... the U.S. positioned itself to, effectively, outsource its manufacturing base, along with its accompanying shift of emissions. How else could the world's leading consumer, without any effective national climate policy, manage to realize a static increase in emission outputs. "Buy American"!!! Oh, right... they don't make anything anymore (/snarc)

[waldo]

In short, people who care about the climate issue need to start eating some crow and acknowledge that the problem has been exaggerated in order to bully the the "stupid people" (sic) into supporting policies preferred by the liberal left. From there we can talk about rational responses to the CO2 risk that acknowledge what we know while taking into account differences in values among people that do limit our policy options.

clearly, through the assorted MLW climate change related threads, you’ve been unable to make any case for your broad-based suggestion of scientific “exaggeration”… whether with a policy influence intent, or not.

ROTFL. Peer reviewed economic studies claim that climate related economic costs will not exceed 5% of GDP 100 years from now. The IPCC's own economic models show that people will be 50% richer in 100 years if we do nothing to try to limit CO2 production today. Yet all these alarmists run around as if the world will come to an end if we do nothing.

laugh hearty, particularly since your response to being challenged on your “problem exaggeration”... scientific exaggeration... is to return with economic references. Huh! Do you really want to be run ragged again over your complete and utter misunderstandings concerning IPCC SRES scenarios (re: your continued display of idiocy with your nonsensical bleat-on concerning your stated, “IPCC's own economic models show that people will be 50% richer in 100 years”)... I’ll be quite content to simply pull back and re-quote away the wealth of your showcased ignorance. You know your statement is incorrect... you’ve been embarrassed enough over it... yet... you still trot it out again. And for the brazillionth time, SRES scenarios are not economic models - no matter how many times you continue to label them as such.

Your so-called rational response to CO2 is anything but… your adapt-R-Us only approach fails miserably in the face of the additional required measures; i.e., necessary emission reductions, mitigation strategies, and prevention deployments.

Additional requires measures? Who says? You? That is nothing but your ideology talking.

well... we could start with the very reference you just alluded to; i.e. the IPCC - you obviously know the respective reports and chapters involved... they have been noted, referenced and quoted enough times through the assortment of various MLW climate change related threads. Ya... we could start there! It's only the die-hard fossil-fuel industry hacks... like yourself... who maintain we can merrily continue with a no emission reduction policy/approach... and simply adapt to whatever happens! Arrrgh... adapt-R-Us... arrrgh!!!

[waldo]

Yawn. There is absolutely nothing in the science that says the best response to the hypothetical risk is kyoto-style CO2 reduction projects. In fact, the science tells us nothing about what should be done since the decision on what to do is a purely a question of politics, economics and values.

The trouble we have is way too many self described intellectuals are incapable of seperating the science from their own political ideology and that is what turns it into a "culture war".

of course, when your TimG going in position starts with a presumption that no emission reduction is necessary, any science based mitigation strategies simply get in your way. Policy extensions to mitigation scenarios... can't be divorced from the science proper - obviously. Oh wait, that's right... in the TimG world, bureaucratic policy-wonks, completely isolated from science participation, advise, monitoring, evaluation, analysis, etc., etc., etc.... will simply measure out how countries will adapt based upon economics... just adapt. Arrrgh... adapt-R-Us... arrrgh!

[TimG]

f course, Bush Republicans ruled the day, notwithstanding the U.S. position as the world's leading emitter. That China & India exemption was intended to only be for the "first round" of the Kyoto Protocol

Bush republicans? Only in your dreams. The vote was 95-0 in favour of resolution that rejected any treaty that did not include binding targets for developing countries. That included democratic alarmists like Kennedy and Kerry.

The only people who though the exemption in Kyoto was acceptable were left wing loonies - the same people who are now demanding that Kyoto be extended with the same exemptions (which goes to show why assurances made before these kinds of treaties are signed are worthless).

Edited December 7, 2010 by TimG

[TimG]

IPCC's own economic models show that people will be 50% richer in 100 years

I have already referenced the appropriate IPCC docs (A1B:60K GDP/capita vs. B1:40K GDP/capita). The only problem is your complete and total denial of anything that casts doubt on your religious faith.

the IPCC - you obviously know the respective reports and chapters involved.

The IPCC reports are supposed to be policy neutral (even though we know that is grosteque falsehood). Therefore there is nothing in them that you can you to claim a particular policy is required. The decision on policy is a political one.

who maintain we can merrily continue with a no emission reduction policy/approach... and simply adapt to whatever happens! Arrrgh... adapt-R-Us... arrrgh!!!

Get over yourself. You are entitled to your opinion. But that is all it is: your opinion based on your values and your ideology.

[TimG]

of course, when your TimG going in position starts with a presumption that no emission reduction is necessary

Significant CO2 reductions are economically and technincally unviable at this time. If that changes I will change my opinion. But until that happens mitigation is waste of money and resources.

[Bonam]

IPCC's own economic models show that people will be 50% richer in 100 years

Such predictions are utter and complete nonsense, whether they come from the IPCC or anywhere else. How much could the people of 1910 have said about the economic state of the people of 2010? The world has changed utterly in the meantime. 2 world wars, the invention of whole new types of technologies that have transformed our societies, the rise and fall of great powers, etc. Changes of no less significance will happen over the next 100 years.

The only thing we can say with absolute certainty about the economic conditions of 2110 is that any prediction we make today will be dead wrong.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Bonam

[TimG]

The only thing we can say with absolute certainty about the economic conditions of 2110 is that any prediction we make today will be dead wrong.

I agree 100%. I only bring them up because Waldo sees the IPCC as his bible. It is too bad that he cannot understand that the IPCC projections are completely dependent on their economic model. This makes them as useless as any other economic model and hardly something that we can use to justify investing trillions. Edited December 7, 2010 by TimG

[Bonam]

I agree 100%. I only bring them up because Waldo sees the IPCC as his bible. It is too bad that he cannot understand that the IPCC projections are completely dependent on their economic model. This makes them as useless as any other economic model and hardly something that we can use to justify investing trillions.

Well, economic models can be of use when planning things for perhaps up to 10-20 years in the future, but any further then that and the only assumption you can make is that societal and technological changes will dominate over any current economic trends. While economic predictions of 100 years in the future are irrelevant, there are other things that can be said with somewhat higher confidence. One of those is that, barring a catastrophic war that destroys civilization, our technological capabilities will have advanced so far as to be utterly beyond the comprehension of even the most tech-savvy and forward-thinking people alive today. In that light, I suspect a trivial matter like a perturbation in the Earth's CO2 levels will be almost inconsequential and could be fixed with negligible effort, if desired.

[waldo]

left wing activists! Your exaggerated desperation shines on... yes, of course, all other industrialized nations signed on, but not the good ole USA... to what would have been a "minuscule" 6% reduction below 1990 levels. Of course, Bush Republicans ruled the day, notwithstanding the U.S. position as the world's leading emitter. That China & India exemption was intended to only be for the "first round" of the Kyoto Protocol... in recognition that they were not significant participants in the initial wave of industrialized emission and that their economies, at the time, would have been subject to a disproportionate influence given their burgeoning developing nation status. In any case, that link I posted above sums up well what transpired over time... the U.S. positioned itself to, effectively, outsource its manufacturing base, along with its accompanying shift of emissions. How else could the world's leading consumer, without any effective national climate policy, manage to realize a static increase in emission outputs. "Buy American"!!! Oh, right... they don't make anything anymore (/snarc)

Bush republicans? Only in your dreams. The vote was 95-0 in favour of resolution that rejected any treaty that did not include binding targets for developing countries. That included democratic alarmists like Kennedy and Kerry.

The only people who though the exemption in Kyoto was acceptable were left wing loonies - the same people who are now demanding that Kyoto be extended with the same exemptions (which goes to show why assurances made before these kinds of treaties are signed are worthless).

Yes... Bush Republicans - ultimately. The U.S. actually signed the Kyoto Protocol... yes, there was bipartisan Senate rejection during the Clinton admin; however, it was the Bush admin that formally rejected the Kyoto Protocol... and turned away from that initial agreement offered by the U.S. Kyoto negotiating team. Just who is it you're claiming are now calling for like exemptions to the initial Kyoto protocol... just who are your supposed "left-wing loonies"?

[TimG]

One of those is that, barring a catastrophic war that destroys civilization, our technological capabilities will have advanced so far as to be utterly beyond the comprehension of even the most tech-savvy and forward-thinking people alive today.

More importantly, people in the future will have better tools that allow them to deal with any issues that come up.

[TimG]

there was bipartisan Senate rejection during the Clinton admin; however, it was the Bush admin that formally rejected the Kyoto Protocol.

Bush was just acknowledging the decision made by the senate in 1997.

[Bonam]

More importantly, people in the future will have better tools that allow them to deal with any issues that come up.

Yep. However, none of this takes away from the fact that increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere do produce a strengthening of the greenhouse effect, acidification of the oceans, etc. And, while 100 years, or perhaps even 50 years from now, technology will likely exist to make this whole issue trivial, that will not necessarily be true in the coming 2 or 3 decades. Thus, if there is reason to believe that harmful effects will result in the coming couple of decades as a result of global warming, then it may well make sense to study near-term solutions, even though later in the future problems could be countered with much lesser effort.

Personally though I'm not too worried. The damage done by climate change in the next 20-30 years will be minimal and easily adapted to by industrialized nations, while later in the future we will begin to control the Earth's weather and climate as we see fit.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Bonam

[waldo]

I have already referenced the appropriate IPCC docs (A1B:60K GDP/capita vs. B1:40K GDP/capita). The only problem is your complete and total denial of anything that casts doubt on your religious faith.

you're making shit up... and you know it. You've obviously shown you don't understand the SRES scenarios - that's been made embarrassingly clear for you. So here you are trotting out 2 of the assorted scenario groupings, ignoring all the others, not even understanding what you're referencing... and making grandiose summation claims. Again, would you like the wealth of your misunderstanding on SRES scenarios played back for you - quote, by quote?

The IPCC reports are supposed to be policy neutral (even though we know that is grosteque falsehood). Therefore there is nothing in them that you can you to claim a particular policy is required. The decision on policy is a political one.

Get over yourself. You are entitled to your opinion. But that is all it is: your opinion based on your values and your ideology.

WG1 is policy neutral... it also includes significant emphasis on mitigation aspects. It wouldn't surprise me you'd purposely conflate SPM... or WG2... or WG3, with WG1. Nice of you to label other differing opinions to yours as ideological driven... of course, your opinion would be subject to, uhhhh.....

[waldo]

of course, when your TimG going in position starts with a presumption that no emission reduction is necessary, any science based mitigation strategies simply get in your way. Policy extensions to mitigation scenarios... can't be divorced from the science proper - obviously. Oh wait, that's right... in the TimG world, bureaucratic policy-wonks, completely isolated from science participation, advise, monitoring, evaluation, analysis, etc., etc., etc.... will simply measure out how countries will adapt based upon economics... just adapt. Arrrgh... adapt-R-Us... arrrgh!

Significant CO2 reductions are economically and technincally unviable at this time. If that changes I will change my opinion. But until that happens mitigation is waste of money and resources.

no - they are not. You can continue to ignore the assortment of, for example, IEA roadmap scenarios that exist (as asked for and presented to the G8/G20)... technology exists today, to begin emission reduction strategies today. You know it. Your standard go-to on missing scalable technologies has been accounted for within the IEA roadmap... you simply won't acknowledge it. You won't even entertain the concept of emission reductions... it's the TimG entrenched alignment with the fossil-fuel industry... of course, it is. TimG says just continue BAU, let emissions continue to rise, uncontrollably... arrrgh... adapt-R-Us... arrrgh!

[waldo]

Such predictions are utter and complete nonsense, whether they come from the IPCC or anywhere else. How much could the people of 1910 have said about the economic state of the people of 2010? The world has changed utterly in the meantime. 2 world wars, the invention of whole new types of technologies that have transformed our societies, the rise and fall of great powers, etc. Changes of no less significance will happen over the next 100 years.

The only thing we can say with absolute certainty about the economic conditions of 2110 is that any prediction we make today will be dead wrong.

and the IPCC makes no such predictions... an assortment of projections are played out within the myriad of IPCC SRES scenarios... what if scenarios, factoring economics, technology, demographics, policy aspects, globalization versus regionalization... and an assortment of other drivers. TimG simply doesn't understand their purpose, usage or intent. As I said, he's made it abundantly clear, over and over, how little he understands of the IPCC SRES scenarios.

[waldo]

I agree 100%. I only bring them up because Waldo sees the IPCC as his bible. It is too bad that he cannot understand that the IPCC projections are completely dependent on their economic model. This makes them as useless as any other economic model and hardly something that we can use to justify investing trillions.

it seems to me, you quite readily quote from the IPCC reports... or at least you make shit up in terms of how you presume to reference the reports. Your assessment is laughable given how your ignorance played out through our long cycle of discussion over SRES scenarios.

[waldo]

While economic predictions of 100 years in the future are irrelevant, there are other things that can be said with somewhat higher confidence. One of those is that, barring a catastrophic war that destroys civilization, our technological capabilities will have advanced so far as to be utterly beyond the comprehension of even the most tech-savvy and forward-thinking people alive today. In that light, I suspect a trivial matter like a perturbation in the Earth's CO2 levels will be almost inconsequential and could be fixed with negligible effort, if desired.

as mentioned, the IPCC SRES scenarios are anything but strict "economic only" projections... obviously technology progress continues. I wouldn't expect you to advocate a simplistic adaptation only approach to policy in dealing with climate change... while we wait on those eventual technology solutions... in whatever visionary timeframe you might choose or prefer.

on edit: belated recognition to your subsequent post

Yep. However, none of this takes away from the fact that increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere do produce a strengthening of the greenhouse effect, acidification of the oceans, etc. And, while 100 years, or perhaps even 50 years from now, technology will likely exist to make this whole issue trivial, that will not necessarily be true in the coming 2 or 3 decades. Thus, if there is reason to believe that harmful effects will result in the coming couple of decades as a result of global warming, then it may well make sense to study near-term solutions, even though later in the future problems could be countered with much lesser effort.

Personally though I'm not too worried. The damage done by climate change in the next 20-30 years will be minimal and easily adapted to by industrialized nations, while later in the future we will begin to control the Earth's weather and climate as we see fit.

Edited December 7, 2010 by waldo

[waldo]

Bush was just acknowledging the decision made by the senate in 1997.

yes, thank you - I accept your agreement that it was the Bush administration that formally reversed the initial U.S. signing of the Kyoto Protocol.

[TimG]

You've obviously shown you don't understand the SRES scenarios

I understand them perfectly. You are the one who refuses to acknowledge reality.

WG1 is policy neutral

The IPCC is policy neutral:

Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.

So if you argue that IPCC report actually dictates what policies should be adopted then you are agreeing with one of the major criticisms that have been leveled at the IPCC: it is baised and seeks to promote CO2 mitigation policies

[TimG]

what if scenarios, factoring economics, technology, demographics, policy aspects, globalization versus regionalization

IOW - everything that you would expect to see in a long term economic model. Your obtuseness on this point astounds me. The IPCC projections are built on a economic model and are no more useful than the economic model they are built on. Edited December 7, 2010 by TimG

[TimG]

yes, thank you - I accept your agreement that it was the Bush administration that formally reversed the initial U.S. signing of the Kyoto Protocol.

So what? Bush was the undertaker. It was the senate that killed it. I see this is another tenet of your faith. You are incapable of acknowledging that the US rejection of Kyoto was a bi-partisan affair.

[waldo]

I understand them perfectly. You are the one who refuses to acknowledge reality.

The IPCC is policy neutral:

So if you argue that IPCC report actually dictates what policies should be adopted then you are agreeing with one of the major criticisms that have been leveled at the IPCC: it is baised and seeks to promote CO2 mitigation policies

nonsense - you displayed your complete misunderstanding of the SRES scenarios, repeatedly. And you know it - if you persist I will take the cycles to roll on back through every single bullshit post you threw up and play them back for you, one by one.

if you consider advising on mitigation approaches/strategies as advocating for specific policy, then you're a bigger fool than already recognized. The SPM draft certainly presents policy makers options... it seems clear you haven't even a basic understanding of what's done with that draft - that it's actually government representatives from all participating nations that take the draft IPCC SPM report (as written by the lead authors of the individual chapters) and work with the lead authors to present the final report... in language modified so that the conclusions are correctly understood by governments and scientists alike. Emphasis on governments agreeing to the makeup of the SPM report... governments signing off on the SPM report... does that need to be repeated for you?

[TimG]

you displayed your complete misunderstanding of the SRES scenarios, repeatedly.

Yawn. The only thing that you would repeat is your complete inability to read and understand an argument.

Short summary: the IPCC has four economic models: A1, B1, A2, B2

The 1 series assumes robust economic growth with a declining population.

The 2 series assumes weak economic growth and a rising population.

Note that they did not do a weak economic growth and declining population series. That is most likely because such a scenario would undermine their political agenda.

The A series assumes no emission reduction policies.

The B series assumes emission reduction policies.

The 2 series is not remotely realistic because it assumes that population continues to rise indefinitely. This goes against all other projections for future population. This means the A2 and B2 projections should be ignored as too implausible.

The A1 family is basically an extrapolation of current trends which makes it a BAU scenario. A1B is the middle of the road variant and generally used when people need to pick one scenario as a BAU for comparisons.

The IPCC claim that there is no BAU and all scenarios are equally likely is nothing but political a** covering. Anyone with any understanding of the scenarios should recognize this. Your endless inistence that the IPCC "no BAU" claim has any merit in the real world exposes you as someone who can cut and paste but has no deeper understanding of the subject.

Edited December 7, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

and the IPCC makes no such predictions... an assortment of projections are played out within the myriad of IPCC SRES scenarios... what if scenarios, factoring economics, technology, demographics, policy aspects, globalization versus regionalization... and an assortment of other drivers. TimG simply doesn't understand their purpose, usage or intent. As I said, he's made it abundantly clear, over and over, how little he understands of the IPCC SRES scenarios.

IOW - everything that you would expect to see in a long term economic model. Your obtuseness on this point astounds me. The IPCC projections are built on a economic model and are no more useful than the economic model they are built on.

Yawn. The only thing that you would repeat is your complete inability to read and understand an argument.

Short summary: the IPCC has four economic models: A1, B1, A2, B2

The 1 series assumes robust economic growth with a declining population.

The 2 series assumes weak economic growth and a rising population.

Note that they did not do a weak economic growth and declining population series. That is most likely because such a scenario would undermine their political agenda.

The A series assumes no emission reduction policies.

The B series assumes emission reduction policies.

The 2 series is not remotely realistic because it assumes that population continues to rise indefinitely. This goes against all other projections for future population. This means the A2 and B2 projections should be ignored as too implausible.

obtuse? Yes, you certainly are... no matter how many times you're corrected, you still persist in labeling the SRES scenarios as "economic models". Certainly, as has been stated previously, there are sub-model components that could be labeled as definitional "economic models"; however, in their encompassing makeup, the models that generate the SRES scenarios are not your simplistic defined "economic models"... the IPCC goes to lengths in advising as much. And now you've just compounded your misunderstanding by labeling the SRES family groupings as "models". You really should stop before you injure yourself. Since you persist, the scenarios are generated as a result of model runs... they, in themselves, are not models, economic or otherwise. There are 6 specific models (each with sub-model groupings) involved in generating the assorted 40+ scenarios, notwithstanding the separate distinct GCM and multi-modal climate models that encompass dedicated facets of separate processing. What you ignorantly continue to refer to as "IPPC economic models":

- Asian Pacific Integrated Model (AIM) => "The AIM comprises three main models - the greenhouse gas emission model (AIM/emission), the global climate change model (AIM/climate), and the climate change impact model (AIM/impact). The AIM/emission model estimates greenhouse gas emissions and assesses policy options to reduce them. The AIM/climate model forecasts concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and estimates the global mean temperature increase. The AIM/impact model estimates climate change impacts on natural environment and socio-economy of the Asian-Pacific region."

- Atmospheric Stabilization Framework Model (ASF) => "The current version of the ASF includes energy, agricultural, deforestation, GHG emissions and atmospheric models and provides emission estimates for nine of the world’s regions. The ASF GHG emissions model uses outputs of the energy, agricultural, and deforestation models to estimate GHG emissions in each ASF region. These emissions are estimated by mapping GHG emission sources to corresponding emission drivers and changing them according to changes in these drivers. Finally, the ASF atmospheric model uses GHG emission estimates to calculate GHG concentrations, and corresponding radiative forcing and temperature effects."

- Integrated Model to Assess the Greenhouse Effect (IMAGE), used in connection with the WorldScan model => "consists of three fully linked systems of models; the Energy-Industry System (EIS) model, the Terrestrial Environment System (TES) model and the Atmosphere-Ocean System (AOS) model. The Energy-Industry System (EIS) computes the emissions of greenhouse gases in 13 world regions. The energy-related emissions are based on the Targets Image Energy Regional (TIMER) simulation model. TIMER is a systems dynamics model with investment decisions into energy efficiency, electricity generation and energy supply based on anticipated demand, relative costs or prices and institutional and informational delays. The objective of the Terrestrial Environment System (TES) is to simulate global land-use and land-cover changes and their effect on emissions of greenhouse gases and ozone precursors, and on carbon fluxes between the biosphere and the atmosphere."

- Multiregional Approach for Resource and Industry Allocation (MARIA) => "MARIA is a compact integrated assessment model to assess the interrelationships among economy, energy, resources, land use and global climate change. Involving energy flows and dividing the world into regions, MARIA has been developed to assess the technology and policy options to address global warming."

- Model for Energy Supply Strategy Alternatives and their General Environmental Impact (MESSAGE) => "encompassing 5 sub-models, MESSAGE is a dynamic linear programming model, calculating cost-minimal supply structures under the constraints of resource availability, the menu of given technologies, and the demand for useful energy. It estimates detailed energy systems structures, including energy demand, supply and emissions patterns, that are consistent with the evolution of primary and final energy consumption produced by the sub-model SG."

- The Mini Climate Assessment Model (MiniCAM) => "MiniCAM is a small rapidly running Integrated Assessment Model that estimates global greenhouse emissions with the Edmonds, Reilly and Barns (ERB) (Edmonds et al 1994, 1996a) model and the agriculture, forestry and land use model (ALM)(Edmonds et al 1996b). MiniCAM uses the Wigley and Raper MAGICC (Wigley and Raper, 1993) model to estimate climate changes, the Hulme et al (1995) SCENGEN tool to estimate regional climate changes, and the Manne, Richels and Mendelsohn (1995) damage functions to examine the impacts of climate change."

The A1 family is basically an extrapolation of current trends which makes it a BAU scenario. A1B is the middle of the road variant and generally used when people need to pick one scenario as a BAU for comparisons.

The IPCC claim that there is no BAU and all scenarios are equally likely is nothing but political a** covering. Anyone with any understanding of the scenarios should recognize this. Your endless inistence that the IPCC "no BAU" claim has any merit in the real world exposes you as someone who can cut and paste but has no deeper understanding of the subject.

good on ya for acknowledging your single-most blatant faux pas... yes, certainly you were most adamant in pushing your misunderstandings over 'business as usual (BAU)' within the SRES scenarios. Of course, when it was finally pointed out to you the absolute and most definitive IPCC statements concerning BAU within SRES (rather, the absence of BAU within SRES) you proceeded to shout "weasel words", "ass covering" (as you've now done again), etc. Quite comical, indeed! But, of course, if you actually had even a minimal understanding of the SRES scenarios you'd recognize why the concept of BAU doesn't fit within them... so, obviously, you make your own shit up again, because, apparently to you, the IPCC doesn't know what it's talking about concerning it's own SRES concept/process/methodologies! Another TimG classic... one for the books.