We could be accused of over-representing our understanding and there will doubtless be an undercurrent of suspicion that WG II authors are not qualified to make such judgements on climatological matters. Are we prepared to defend ourselves against such (potential) charges?
(3) If we use something like version 3 or version 1 (including likelihoods), we must consider how this should be reported in the SPM. This is what governments will comment on this time around (some, but I doubt many, may refer to the revised chapters). We can try to revise the simplified Table we have in the current draft SPM. Alternatively, we could finesse the problem of consistency by NOT including a table at all in the SPM, but rather use some appropriate (weasel?) wording to describe the changes in extremes expected, which represents a compromise between the WG I table and Table 3-10..... [Timothy Carter]
Hat tip: AJ