evidence: Skeptical Science categorizes this claim as "incorrect." They explain that although Hansen’s prediction of a global temperature increase was higher than the actual warming observed, this discrepancy stems from his use of a high climate sensitivity parameter. Had Hansen employed the currently accepted value of approximately 3°C warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, his model would have more accurately projected the observed global warming. [...] While Climinator concludes with a "mostly accurate" verdict, it acknowledges the absence of context concerning Hansen’s overestimation and the broader accuracy of his warming trend prediction when actual forcings are taken into account. This perspective, despite differing in classification from Skeptical Science’s "incorrect" label, is not fundamentally at odds with Skeptical Science’s assessment. Both analyses underscore the significance of understanding the underlying assumptions in Hansen’s model, thereby highlighting that Climinator’s evaluation, though different in its final verdict, aligns in principle with the critical assessment provided by Skeptical Science.