Really? Do tell! With links please....
The whole article at the link.
Pubs.GISS: Hansen et al. 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide
Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.
The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage
Blah, blah, blah.
Based on his scenarios, he committed to a specific change in temperature. He was wrong. Not just a little. He was wrong big time. Why do you continue to defend this? By the conditions he set and the predictions he made compared to the reality of what happened, he was wrong.
There is simply no way to deny this.
If you are trying to say that you are pursuing the science of this, you need to go where the science leads. Instead, you stubbornly stick to the dogmatic conclusions proffered by politicians.
If you are a scientist as you claim, then this must be a deliberate deception on your part. If you are a politician claiming to be a scientist, your position makes sense. Not your conclusions, but your position.
olfraud has never claimed to be a scientist. He does claim to have three years of college level geology behind him but that is highly questionable. I do find it amusing that he made it through the first two years (the easy stuff) then when it starts to get hard he bails. That is the point where most students change their major from geology to geography, the math gets VERY hard at that transition level. The chemistry and physics you have to know to get into a graduate level program is substantial as well.
Curiously, the climatologists that these people revere, at most have a Bacelors in geography, none have a bachelors in geology