Once again they can only explain away by appeal to another principle of order: for example, the neo-Darwinian argument that life on earth only
seems to be teleological «because of
environmental and molecular
constraints on the direction of change» (from the online Wikipedia entry for «orthogenesis»).
If Dr. Hansen never imagined Scenario A as being a real possibility for the next 20 years, I guess indicated by his description «Scenario A, since it is exponential, must eventually be on the high side of reality in view of finite resource
constraints and
environmental concerns, even though the growth of emissions in Scenario A (~ 1.5 % yr - 1) is less than the rate typical of the past century (~ 4 % yr - 1)» then his subsequent comment (PNAS, 2001) «Second, the IPCC includes CO2 growth rates that we contend are unrealistically large»
seems to indicate that Dr. Hansen doesn't support some of the more extreme SRES scenarios.