With the thousands of predictions made, ONE seems to be accurate thereby validating all the failed ones?<quoted text>
No, the POINT was, and the bullseye is, that the prediction of a slowing of the rate was accurately predicted and the oceans were named as a key factor. This something deniers have been cheering about the scientists missing. Well, this guy didn't miss. His prediction certainly wasn't worthless, now was it?
I don't know what the margin of error was re the 0.3 C. I know that predictions have varying degrees of accuracy and that the science is ongoing so new details are discovered all the time. But if you want to throw out the CO2 or methane contribution, you're not allowed. The science is too firm.
If the warming is greater than 0.3 C, will you promise to go away?
Reminds me of Hype posting a single article about a researcher who itemized his expenses from a grant, as "proof" that all the others do the same.