One possible answer is to look at how the then-state-of-the-art models in (say) 1990, 1995, 2000, etc, predicted temperature changes going forwards.

It's not as simple as that. Most models give predictions that are conditional on input data to the models (real rate of CO2 production, etc.). To analyze the predictions from, say, a model developed in 1990, you need to feed the model input data from after 1990. Otherwise you get too wide an error margin in your prediction.

The answer, in point-of-fact, is that they consistently predicted a considerably greater temperature rise than actually took place, although the actual temperature rise is just about within the error bars of most models.

True. As I said, this is definitely evidence towards the suitability of the models, and certainly seems to be counter to the claim that "there is no evidence that climate models are valuable in predicting future climate trends.

This is like Paul Samuelson's economics textbook, which consistently (in editions published in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s) predicted that the Soviet Union would overtake the US economy in 25 years.

That's definitely a possibility, but it's reasonable to think that the mathematics and science involved in the climate models stands on a firmer basis than economical analysis, and definitely a firmer basis than Samuelson's analysis.