Some scientists say the study shows that climate modelers need to go back to the drawing board.
Sorry, but no.
Some scientists need to recognize that computer modelling is not science. These models are very useful hypothesis-generating devices, but outside of a very limited range, they have no predictive value. Even with perfect data, they can't predict the past.
It's like all the nonsense we see from the public health community, based on epidemiological studies. It looks like science, and sounds like science, but it's not science.
It IS science if it works. Lots of things are computer modeled very nicely.
These guys just had an agenda they were trying to push, assuming the media would convince people they were correct and no on would question them.
...
It looks like science, and sounds like science, but it's not science.
I tried to explain this to some libtards telling me that most models are highly accurate and are proof positive "global warming"...err I mean "Climate Change" was real...
I could not get it though their wooden heads