Luis,

You used it. You made definitive conclusions based upon it. You have made a de facto statement of opinion about it: It suffices for your needs.

If your sole purpose was to compare your findings in Olduvai vs. the IEA WEO, then what the heck was the point? "Here are two studies, both wide of the mark - by a lot - but let's critique those idiots over there!" Is that supposed to make sense to your readers? A mental exercise just for the heck of it? No. It would be analogous to writing a paper on whether the Edsel or the Torpedo was the bigger failure: irrelevant, and who cares?

You excuse your use of MAGICC as needing to use the equivalent of what the IPCC and IEA relied on. OK. Understandable. You want a fair comparison. But that did not require you to accept the program's assumptions. If anything, exploring them would have strengthened your argument as you could have quite fairly done as I have and shown that the assumptions and data they used rendered their analysis nearly useless (as science. As public relations, it did its job). Then you could have, as I have with your presentation, dismissed it outright. Then you could have produced a better analysis not hobbled by bad data and poor assumptions. That would have only highlighted how poor their report was.

What you have done instead is repeat their errors, then compound them with even more egregious errors. They, at least, don't dismiss reality. When you and Euan say 1.6C by centuries end you turn the entire discussion into a joke. Again: That much warming is already going to happen just with the carbon that is already in the system.

So, in the end, you were bound to the MAGICC and its assumptions because to update them would have left you with no axe to grind with the IEA on the climate angle because you would have reached the same conclusions. Couldn't have that, now, eh?

You two should have limited yourselves to the energy issues. Might have been a fine paper.

Cheers