Those who swim in these things will recall Gavin's nice RealClimate posts discussing Hansen's predictions, and they look somewhat different. I've inlined it too, to save you the terrible effort of clicking on a link.
They aren't on the same time axis (I'm not sure why AE wants to go back to 1880) but they both cover the relevant period, 1960 onwards.
Can you trust the SPM?
One way to catch major distortions of synthesized research by disseming toes is to review, even briefly, the synthesis that they are claiming to report onIf you do this with the actual IPCC synthesis reports, you will likely be shocked by how badly they are distorted by mainstream dissemination including the IPCC's own disseminator document, the Summary for Policy makers.The distortions involved in these summaries have been repeatedly documented by researchers who have resigned from IPCC dissemination bodies such as leading climate economist Richard Tol. Tol resigned from ammary group, protesting that "The IPCC shifted from... 'Not without risk but manageable, to 'We're all gonna die" - "from what I think is a relatively accurate assessment of recent developments in literature to...the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse."
1. Regular readers will be forgiven for wondering "why on Earth would anyone bother to do that"? But I may wish to use this post before a shall-we-say "neutral" audience, so I omit the usual flings2. And no Epstein jokes.
2. You might even want to read through that link, since it is relevant to the general problem of expertise.
* "Billion Dollar Disasters" are a National Embarrassment: You won't find a more obvious example of bad science from the U.S. government - RP Jr via RS.
* From BC, Dan Klein: In 1893, in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, the classical liberal Simon Newcomb explained that students need to be taught liberal precepts, to see the limits of such precepts, and yet see that such limits must not lead us to throw the baby out with the bathwater: It is not claimed that such propositions [about the beneficialness of liberalization] should be taught dogmatically, as if they were theorems of geometry. Not only should their limitations be pointed out, when necessary, but the student should be encouraged to find or even to imagine conditions under which the maxims would fail. In doing this, the vice he should be taught to avoid is that of concluding that because he can imagine a state of things under which a maxim would fail, therefore it is worthless.