Those cases where the BaU figures are used are disclaimed with the qualifier, "Under the Business-as-Usual scenario", and the ensuing discussion is pretty clear

Those cases where the BaU figures are used are disclaimed with the qualifier, "Under the Business-as-Usual scenario", and the ensuing discussion is pretty clearly intended as an exposition on how we should not have wanted to mimic the BaU scenario because, as the model projections for that scenario indicate, there was compelling reason to believe that the consequences would have been bad. Again, cherry-picking things out of context does not a compelling argument make. Unless the people you're trying to compel can be trusted to not check your sources too carefully. And of course the corollary to that is, if the topic is controversial you should always thoroughly fact-check your sources. (Speaking of, I couldn't find the phrase "with certainty" in either of the three FAR policymakers summaries. . . perhaps you meant "with confidence"? Regardless, it's skirting the edge of dishonesty to use the phrase "their words" to describe something that isn't their words.)