[adios]

Hansen stated that this comparison was not sufficient for a 'precise assessment' of the model simulations and he is of course correct. However, that does not imply that no assessment can be made, or that stated errors in the projections (themselves erroneous) of 100 to 400% can't be challenged. My assessment is that the model results were as consistent with the real world over this period as could possibly be expected and are therefore a useful demonstration of the model's consistency with the real world. Thus when asked whether any climate model forecasts ahead of time have proven accurate, this comes as close as you get.

This strikes me as a mea culpa. True my models predictive value can't be relied upon to be all that accurate but it's the best we can do.

Of course modeling the climate is a worthwhile activity but I'd willing to bet a whole bunch of money that over the next 50 years, the models will be improved upon significantly. I'd also guess that you'd be willing to admit this as well.