If the “climate models” were actually any good, they could be set to the conditions of 1916, and then run to produce a hundred-year “forecast” which matched the historical record of the last century.
If that could be done, they would have done it and the climate “scientists” would be shouting it from the rooftops.
But they are, obviously, not.
Because they can’t.
Because the models are crap.
I have yet to see one scientific study of the earth's climate that was done using anything remotely resembling scientific methods. That's because it's impossible to conduct a scientific experiment in a "laboratory" where you can't control the conditions, and where there are too many variables that you can't account for in your study.
You can create a model that perfectly predicts the historical record because it's made from the historical record. It's done all the time for the stock market. "Backtesting" will show a model does an admiral job of laying out the patters of a given stock. But the measure of a model is the ability to test the future and matching the past isn't sufficient. That's why stock traders aren't all billionaires now.
So far we have 20 or 30 years of attempts and the climate models suck at predicting the future.
If the “climate models” were actually any good, they could be set to the conditions of 1916, and then run to produce a hundred-year “forecast” which matched the historical record of the last century.
If that could be done, they would have done it and the climate “scientists” would be shouting it from the rooftops.
But they are, obviously, not.
Because they can’t.
Because the models are crap.
Actually, they probably can and did, but weren’t happy with the projections.
BTW, I like your analogy with the Stock Market.