We didn't. CO2 has continuously risen and the rise accelerated with time. Hansen's predictions should therefore have absolutely come true if he was right, but they didn't. Or do you think the graph of CO2 I showed you in the other post is misleading as well?
W.R.T. the quotes, now you're getting really desperate. Sure, sure, those poor innocent scientists keep getting ascribed word-for-word predictions they never made and they're all just too polite to complain about having words put in their mouth like that. Come on, wake up! He wasn't being misquoted. Here he is in another 2008 article written by himself in which he makes exactly the same prediction:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/jun/23/climatec...
"As a result, without any additional greenhouse gases, the Arctic soon will be ice-free in the summer."
Lots more CO2 was added, 15 years passed, the Arctic is not ice free. Nor are ice levels falling. Here's the data from Hanen's own former employer showing that summer ice sea levels stabilized around 2010, which should not have been possible according to these people:
That said, you did exactly what I described originally: took bad reporting of statements and presented them as factual. Thanks for demonstrating it so well.
Firstly, his 1980s testimony talked about worst case scenarios. That was one of them. As I said previously. His 1988 speech and report to congress says no such thing about New York, neither does your linked article. What it says is that, in conversation with another person, he discussed that as a possible outcome (or perhaps a likely one, if we didn't change course somewhat... which we did). 3rd hand reporting of his words without ANY context. But you took it as fact and repeated it as such.
Secondly, that newspaper article doesn't quote him for your statement about the arctic sea ice, it simply alludes to it being something he said. With no quote and context we can't know what he actually was talking about, just how the journalist took it and decided to summarize it. Again, see the previous post for where I talked about this.
However, it is worth noting that, since satellites first began monitoring the Arctic in 1979, the average area covered by sea ice has shrunk by at least 40%. The past 15 years have seen the 15 lowest summer sea ice minimums on record. It's entirely likely he was, again, talking about worst case (or simply just bad) scenarios. It's also possible he was talking about point-of-no-return (which some believe we may have reached with arctic ice, as it's almost all 'young' ice now).
We can't know, it's not reported. What we do know thought is that what you said is false.
Again, thanks for perfectly demonstrating my point. I urge you to actually look into the sources rather than reading PopSci reporting. It will help you to not make these mistakes again.