It's OK... you just keep changing the models each year to allow for what actually happened... get the terms right, and you can still predict upcoming disaster.
That's the nice thing about the “garbage-in, what-you-want-out” approach.
The criteria of “correct” is “do I get next years grant?”.
I don’t understand your answer. The computer models of 30, 20 and 10 years ago must have reached conclusions of what the temps would be in the “future”. Well, the “future” is here - were the predictions correct? The article seems to suggest they were not. What were the predictions? It they have been consistently wrong, that should be powerful evidence that one can’t model climate. Thanks