You know it's posts like this that give climate science a VERY bad reputation. I've got a degree in statistics, so I read your post and immediately 3 alarm bells go off.

It is WIDELY known in scientific circles that IPCC predictions have a bit of a nasty habit of having, firstly, very dubious statistical underpinnings (which is another way of saying their methodology is complete shite). Secondly, without making any political claims, they systematically overstate the problem by a LOT. This is purely a statement based on the numbers they put out, and I imply no ulterior motive on their part. But their predictions do all seem to error on one side, never the other.

And yet here you are, making the exact opposite claim to what I know to be true. But there are a few alarm bells. You disagree with how I thought I know the world to be, and you make an oddly specific cherry-picked argument. Here's what I mean:

1) broad claim that would barely gain support from the rest of your argument. Illustrating correctness from cherry-picked data points is an argument that does not belong in science.

2) very weird pick of the predicted and evaluated variable (obviously the main predicted climate variable is "temperature anomaly", so why don't you go for that one ? Is this a case of "we got the basics of our prediction wildly wrong, but in this long list of things we touched on sideways we lucked out ! We were right after all !" ?)

3) You pick the "third assessment report". How did the first 2 predictions fare ? (this is useful in more ways, because those can of course be evaluated against more data than this one)

4) You picked the third assessment report. Was this even a prediction ? The comparison stops in 2002 on your linked graph. When was AR3 released ?

Let's take the easiest one of these questions and check it out. The fourth one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Cli...

Okay so the prediction of the IPCC from 1970 to 2002/2006 (different datasets) has a publication date of 2001. Whereas from all the IPCC predictions there are plenty available to do better checks of their accuracy. Very, very suspicious. So really, there's only a single datapoint in there (for both series) that is actually a prediction (ie. not known at the time of publication, and only 1/7th of any of the data is predicted. Furthermore, the graph neglects to point out where this prediction actually started, which probably led you to make the wrong conclusion)

Now let's look at alarm signals 2 and 3 and let's actually evaluate IPCC accuracy. Blogposts made by others you probably found by Googling your wanted conclusion are apparently allowed in support of one's argument, so:

https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-cli...

Oops ...

"Based upon these and other lines of evidence (laid out in our numerous scientific publications, books, blogs articles, social media (see publications listed here and here for example)), we conclude that future global warming will occur at a pace substantially lower than that upon which US federal and international actions to restrict greenhouse gas emissions are founded."

So in conclusion, your main claim, that the IPCC reports contain accurate predictions, aside from being overly broad, is weakened by your listed sources. It is also widely known to be wrong, and indeed on closer observation it is wrong.

(I have in fact ran the numbers myself, and concluded that IPCC methodology is crap, and it has in fact had predictable results : disastrously wrong predictions. The IPCC would have to be correct for tens of thousands of years from this point forward to make their "95%" predictions actually correct in 95% of cases)

Another non-political interesting factoid: the IPCC has stopped giving values for the climate forcing variable in their latest report. I would just like to point out that this is not the correct way to inspire confidence in one's predictions.

And there are people, even in my own university that won't just make claims like yours, outrageous and wrong, but actually use the administration to suppress people correcting them. A decent portion of the statistics/math and some in the physics department have suddenly found themselves defending basic math. Whilst none of this of course reflects directly on the science behind it I would just like to make a final point that climate science was recently (few years ago actually, I'm getting old) relocated in my university. It used to be part of the science department. It is now part of the humanities. You know, where theology and philosophy goes.

Do you wish to retract your statement ?