.
Arguably, the most famous model prediction is Dr Hansen’s 1988 graph of expected warming which isn’t doing very well as of 2009. [We don't know about 2010 yet.]
.
You don’t have to be a climatologist to see that reality didn’t match the prediction. Oh I forgot you DO have to be a trained climatologist to read a graph.
.
Here is a graph from Dr Hansen’s 2005 defense of his model.
.
http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/hansenscenarios.png
.
Here is the prediction itself. See page 7.
.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
.
As of 2005 he was doing pretty well, but the value of the anomaly as of 2009 is .57 ° C which puts it below scenario “C”.
.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt
.
Even using the UHI polluted data of GISS which is obviously too high he didn’t do well. My OUIJA board could do better !
.
Scenario “C” was what would be expected if massive carbon restrictions were put in place in 1988 which didn’t happen did it ?
.

Comparing a climate alarmist scientist to a doctor is insulting to the doctor. If a doctor is wrong he buries his mistake and if he is wrong long often enough he is forced out of the profession. A climate alarmist can be wrong for 30 to 50 years and be hailed as a near rock star. Someday one will be given a Nobel prize like Al Gore.

.
Arguably, the most famous model prediction is Dr Hansen’s 1988 graph of expected warming which isn’t doing very well as of 2009. [We don't know about 2010 yet.]
.
You don’t have to be a climatologist to see that reality didn’t match the prediction. Oh I forgot you DO have to be a trained climatologist to read a graph.
.
Here is a graph from Dr Hansen’s 2005 defense of his model.
.
http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/hansenscenarios.png
.
Here is the prediction itself. See page 7.
.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
.
As of 2005 he was doing pretty well, but the value of the anomaly as of 2009 is .57 ° C which puts it below scenario “C”.
.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt
.
Even using the UHI polluted data of GISS which is obviously too high he didn’t do well. My OUIJA board could do better !
.
Scenario “C” was what would be expected if massive carbon restrictions were put in place in 1988 which didn’t happen did it ?
.
Did any model predict the lack of warming from 1998 to 2009 ?
.
If it did it was hushed up and hidden from the public because it didn’t fit the agenda of the climate alarmists. The scientists whispered his results into a closet when no one was listening.
.
This one was used to extort huge amounts of funds from congress !
.
I believe the manipulation of the surface temperature data is to rescue this and other such models from utter disgrace. Who put the fox in charge of the hen house ?
.
Comparing a climate alarmist scientist to a doctor is insulting to the doctor. If a doctor is wrong he buries his mistake and if he is wrong long often enough he is forced out of the profession. A climate alarmist can be wrong for 30 to 50 years and be hailed as a near rock star. Someday one will be given a Nobel prize like Al Gore.

Given this, is it hard to imagine why AGW has such a large following? Macro-economists have to run everything thru very complicated algorithms and so do AGW ‘Scientists’. So it becomes more of a PR game on who can convince the most people rather than being able to actually predict anything.

The general public then has to rely on ‘Trust’. Go to any AGW Advocate site and look for the words ‘trust’, ‘credibility’, ‘consensus’, ‘estimated’, ‘revised’, ‘adjusted’, ‘modest’, ‘alarming’, ‘likely’, and the list goes on an on.

Find another Theory that relies on such a myriad of subjective terms, and you have found us a Theory that holds no water.

And I think the term “idiot” is appropriate of you, but hey, don’t take it personally!

No, they haven’t. They weren’t even close.

Here are the questions you dodged despite being asked twice.

Why are you dealing with science from the 1980s?

Why don’t you hold your blog skeptics to the same level of criticism that you hold climate scientists?

And I only asked this once, but do you hold other predictive disciplines to the same standard that you hold climate science? A question you thoroughly ignored.

As for Hansen’s early predictions, I ignored nothing. Fine, he made predictions – they were not exact but they have proven essentially sound. The data is there; great, good for you. We differ (and I might point out that I have the science community on my side). What more do you want?

As for Hansen, I never said he admitted to over-estimating, simply that he believes we have more to learn. I believe it is from one of his op-eds but I am too tired to look for it at the moment. You may if you really must obsess over it more.

And fine if you want to take your ball and go home in a huff – you are not the first to back away from the tough questions you do not want to answer. But please, look at the list above before you decide you have any moral or intellectual superiority here.

So…C’ya.

As expected, you ignore the data I provided (from Hansen himself), fail to substantiate your claim that Hansen admits he over-estimated (after being asked twice), continue to question MY objectivity, and persist with the name-calling.

So… buh-bye.

I might concede to arguments against using such terms if the people who raised the most ruckus also called out those who use the terms such as “alarmist” or “true-believers” or the like. I am only stooping to the level of discourse already well established on this site and ones like it.

As to credentials: Hansen is a PhD climate scientist who has spent the last two decades working in consort with the world scientific community. Like it or not, he is the prominent voice among those who know and do the most. The blogosphere? Not so much.

Reputation: Unsullied except for the blog-oriented deniosphere. He is dramatic at times, I’ll give you that (and he’d probably be much better off if he wasn’t), but he and his work is accepted by the critics who really know the biz. I’d say that puts him over your blog-source.

Once again, I would be willing to be swayed if your criticisms worked both ways – that is, if you were as critical of your blog sources as you are of your scientific sources, you yourself would have a good deal more credibility. May I politely suggest, Russ, that you are not at all “objective.”

And once again, I have to point out that you are judging Hansen by 22 year old science. He was making a prediction based on best available evidence at the time. What was the state of cancer research 22 years ago? The opinion of water on Mars? The giant squid? Computers? The scientific community is increasingly behind him, and has been over these 22 years, and these are the people who should know. It is only in the last couple of years, since Al Gore made a movie, that a certain segment of the population (and a certain segment of industry) became really incensed – which might lead one to believe the drive against AGW is political (a back lash against the green movement on some level).

In any event, I shall be leaving for a bit, so you may have your echo chamber all to yourselves.

Sunny days.