"No, funny guy, that's not, how it works. You put forth an argument, you put forth supporting citations. If you don't, the argument is baseless"

I don't think Slashdot qualifies as "peer-reviewed" even if there's always someone willing to disagree. And long experience shows that providing citations off the bat doesn't mean that they'll be read. If the other person is unfamiliar to me and won't even try to look for what I'm referencing, that has been a very reliable indicator of what I can expect in 15+ yrs of browsing /. It's not like you have to run out in a hurricane to the local library.

So bye, bye and happy holidays.

Have a look at the link below. Here's a teaser - Methane levels downwind peaked at the stunningly high level of 2080 parts per billion!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

Try not to be so lazy but in the spirit of the holiday season, here's one for free: http://www.insurancebusinesson...

"Shield his corporation........" - you should do stand up, funny guy.

There are more than just scientists, partisans & deniers. I certainly can't claim to be a scientist but neither are nearly all of the most vehement deniers.
I've spent 20 years listening to the actual scientists on BOTH sides and have decided who to trust.
At some point, every rational person has to decide which side of the fence to come down on or forever have the post stuck up his ass.

It doesn't require every last uncertainty to be resolved with perfect accuracy and every measure I've personally taken to lower my carbon footprint has saved me money.

We need more permanent temperature monitoring stations, in the oceans & the poles, as much or more than we need better models.

If we can't accurately measure the real world changes, we won't know for certain how good or bad the models are.

The much-ballyhooed "pause / hiatus / slowdown" gave deniers something to crow about - so much so that none stopped to think why the melt rate of Arctic sea ice, Greenland, Antarctic ice shelves and the vast majority of the planets glaciers sped up enormously.
I would have thought that at least a few of them are aware of just how much heat is needed to melt ice - it's a LOT.

Better coverage of those regions would have exposed the illusion of the "slowdown".

That number is a lot closer to 1 than to zero.
Imperfect models aren't useless and I'd rather they hit a bit high than low when there are still forcings & feedbacks of uncertain magnitude.
By definition, all models are imperfect.

Given what he had to work with in the '80s , it's a wonder he got anywhere near the results he did.

See below for one analysis of Hansen's predictions vs real-world observations. The main issue is that the value he used for climate sensitivity was on the high side; adjusting that value downwards and making no other changes gives a pretty good agreement with observations.

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

There are other comparisons but this is the most layman-friendly yet thorough I've yet found.
Keep in mind that the polar regions, especially the Arctic, have been warming the quickest (one of Hansen's longstanding predictions) but are not well-represented in any dataset, especially the HadCRUT ones which is what your linked paper is using for their reconstructions, although HadCRUT4 is significantly better in this regard than HadCRUT3.

"depend heavily on one's belief in global warming" - when re-insurers are worried, the general public should sit up and pay attention.
If you think, global warming is a belief system, ask yourself when & why Rex Tillerson, CEO of oil giant ExxonMobil got religion.
He's firmly on the side of those who think that we can adapt or geoengineer out of the worst of it but that's a long way from the "belief" that's it's all some commie hoax.

Go ahead and add those up, too. We are speaking of true costs, after all.
But you'll have to give up your computer & smartphone or accept ones that are much larger, slower, with crappier screens and lower capacity if you choose to live without the lanthanides.

Reiss got it wrong in the interview but what was actually asked of & answered by Hansen is recorded in two of his books, one of which is The Coming Storm, 2001.

A flaw in that reasoning is that bad drilling practices cause a significant release of methane into the atmosphere which has a much higher warming effect in the near term than CO2.

By "true costs", he means the cost of the environmental impact and total externalities.

The info from that article is wrong as the interviewed author later admitted.
Hansen's prediction was based on a worst-case scenario of CO2 doubling by 2030 but his paper from that year or previous one said that a doubling by 2060 (Scenario B) was more likely.

The Salon article was wrong - see my reply to OP.

The Salon article is wrong although the fault may be that of the interviewee. Bob Reiss asked Hansen what the view from his office would look like if his worst-case scenario from the paper he'd published not long before the interview were to come to pass.
That would have been the Scenario A from the 1988 "Global Climate Change as Forecast by GISS 3D Model" - http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs...

That scenario as described in the paper, assumes a CO2 doubling by 2030 but states that Scenario B's assumption of said doubling by 2060 is more likely.

Reiss details the conversation in a couple of his books but only named 2001's The Coming Storm when he corrected what he'd told to Salon, who never updated the online article.
Either way, there's still quite some time before Hansen's prediction can be definitively shown to have been wrong