Weescotty, the problem with your analysis is that it only tells part of the story - it cherry picks one aspect of climate science. The Earth has carried on accumulating heat in the past 16 years, and it has gone into the oceans. Several studies show this, and it is consistent with the observed energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere. Most of the warming in general goes into the oceans, with only a fraction warming the atmosphere. So choosing a short period of surface temperatures to claim warming has stopped is disingenuous, and if you look at graphs of surface temperatures, it's not unusual to see such periods where warming has stagnated or there's even been a period of cooling in the long-term trend.
This is because of natural variability. A single La Niña event can temporarily mask a decade's worth of warming. This decade has been dominated by La Niña events, including one of the strongest ones on record. We have also had a deep solar minimum, and if I remember correctly, aerosols have also played their part. If you remove the effects of these factors on global surface temperatures, the underlying trend is still one of warming.
Why didn't these models predict this period of slow warming? Because it is difficult to predict the ENSO cycle and solar activity. Models do show general periods where temperature stagnate though, but getting the timing of these periods is difficult because of the unpredictability of the factors involved. It's also worth pointing out that not models don't always include natural variability in the projections.
Which brings us to Hansen, whose model mainly omitted natural variability. It's also worth pointing out that future emissions of CO2 have to be estimated, and Hansen overestimated those by 15%. Similarly, he chose a climate sensitivity which was too high. If you correct for these problems, his models perform very well. Especially if you remove the influence of natural factors on global surface temperatures, which are not generally included in his models.
Models do a very good job at hindcasting, i.e. at reproducing past change when the input is actual observations of parameters, such as solar activity, and not estimates scientists have to make because that data is not yet available. This suggests that scientists have a good understanding of our climate.