On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:19 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> >>>> The thing I most want to know about RCP4.5 is what RCP stands for, >>>> Google seems to think it's "Rich Client Platform" but that doesn't sound >>>> quite right. It must be pretty obscure, Wikipedia has never heard of RCP >>>> either. >>>> >>> >> For your information, that means "Regional Climate Prediction" >> > > I'm pretty sure it's not "Russian Communist Party" but are you sure it's > not "Representative Concentration Pathways"? Wikipedia lists 21 possible > meanings of the acronym "RCP" and that's the only one that has anything at > all to do with the environment. Wikipedia has never heard of "Regional > Climate Prediction". > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCP > > It seems you're correct here, the RCP4.5 scenario I discussed was one of four "reprentative concentration pathway" scenarios as indicated by the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathways wiki page. Of course, this doesn't change the fact that you chose to use a rhetorical question about the meaning of the acronym as a lame excuse to totally duck my point that it shows emissions being reduced in a non-drastic way but with a significantly better range of projected temperature rises by 2100 than the business-as-usual scenarios. But this was in keeping with your 100% non-substantive response which ducked every single issue I brought up, like the fact that plenty of people who want to take action on the climate are pro-nuclear (your only response was smartass-teenager style mockery of my use of the word "strawman", ignoring the actual case I made that your characterization of environmentalist views was entirely cherry-picked and non-representative), or the fact that water vapor is not a climate forcing factor like CO2, or the question of what general standard you use to judge the merit of scientific claims in areas you have no expertise in (though your various ignorant claims about physics suggest your standard is something like "treat scientific expertise as worthless whenever it doesn't match what I'd prefer to believe, and place unerring faith in whatever handwavey verbal analysis of a scientific question happens to pop into my head, arguing for this view with supreme confidence regardless of whether I can find any expert support for it"). Jesse -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
