You write,

Before proceeding, a clarification must be made between a prediction and a projection. Some have claimed that the IPCC doesn’t make predictions, it only makes projections across a wide range of emissions scenarios.

Some have claimed that? Who claims that is NOT the case? The IPCC’s Third Assessment Report said very clearly:

Scenarios are images of the future or alternative futures. They are neither predictions nor forecasts.

Then you write:

Enough years have passed for us to be able to say that global emissions have been increasing at the very high end of the family of scenarios used by the IPCC (closest to A1F1 for those scoring at home).

But this neglects the fact that CO2 is *not* the only agent whose emissions have an effect on global temperature. There is also methane CH4. And black carbon. And others. And that’s just on the warming side. On the cooling side there are sulfur dioxide, organic carbon, and others.

So a more accurate assessment would involve looking at the total climate forcing for the various scenarios (not just CO2).

If you go to Figure 10.26 of the Fourth Assessment Report, you’ll see that for 2010, virtually all the scenarios have the same climate forcing of approximately 2.0 Watts per square meter.

Of course, you seem to be working from the premise that the IPCC is interested in doing good science. The evidence is overwhelmingly against you. (I’d be happy to debate the matter. I’m sure it would be of interest to Prometheus readers. And it’s definitely important to climate change policy.)