I pay a lot of attention to weather, as I'm out on the water quite a bit. I've been listening carefully to National Weather Service forecasts for over 25 years.
I don't want to say for sure, but I'm starting to get the impression that while their understanding of weather science may be getting more sophisticated, they are also prone to making more blunders. For instance, during a careful watch of National Weather Service forecasts on Florida's west coast a couple weeks ago, I noticed that they didn't come close to predicting conditions correctly over a 5 day period. Whatever they said the weather was going to be, it was something else, with their predicted wind directions being off by up to 180 degrees at times and never off by less than 45 degrees, except for one period of about 10 hours when they got it right. What's worse than that is that I personally, using no weather instruments at all, not even a barometer, predicted the weather mostly correctly, primarily by noting nothing other than current wind direction and knowing what it meant. This is not to brag, because weather follows specific patterns, most people who have been out on the water have observed these patterns over the years and know the sequences. Not a big deal, and I'm sure the meteorologists at the NWS know the sequences too.
I have the feeling that these guys at the Weather Service have gone over to relying on their computers now, and aren't paying enough attention any more to their own personal knowledge. For whatever reasons, probably improper programming, the computers are sometimes leading them astray.
My point being, of course, that the global warming theorists are also using computer programs to make predictions.
In short, if they can't get it right for next week, what leads them to believe they have it right for the next 100 years?