As usual, you are spinning and HOPING no one will notice.
As usual, you're the one spinning and deflecting. None of what your wrote addresses the fact that you took the top edge of the prediction and acted like it was was the center.
At the time of the FAR, not that long ago, there were only 4 emission scenarios presented. The one USED in that graph I put up was the "business as usual" scenario and is the PROPER one to use since neither the Montreal Protocols got fully implemented nor was deforestation reversed. So the next choice DOWN and ALL below that were not applicable..
No. The BAU scenario predicted 400 ppm in 2010. Scenario B was 380 ppm. The actual was 390 ppm.
So in 1990 -- that WAS the prediction and those results I showed were valid.
Nope. You should have taken something between scenario A and B, and you shouldn't have used the top edge of the envelope.
Furthermore -- you are projecting the "bad practice" of telling the media and politicians about the WORST CASE scenario. Which accounted for SCREAMING HEADLINES of doom and gloom and initiated this entire circus. I would NEVER take the Worst Case numbers from a turdish projection like that ---- but that's EXACTLY what the GW Parade Directors did to alarm the public and create the panic..
Repeating your unsupported assertions more stridently won't make them any more credible.
And your logic is still bad.
"A 1990 prediction was a little high, so all predictions are bad" doesn't make sense.
"The media hyped things, so the predictions are bad" wouldn't make sense either, even if it was true.