Even after all of that... it’s still just a model, and a new model at that. The ultimate test of any model is to see how well its predictions match the real world, but this one has no track record to check yet.
It's even simpler than that, my FRiend. They can take the models and pretend it's 1980. They can put in all the variables for a prediction that are actual observations between 1980 and 2013. Their "model" should spit out data that concurs with current conditions.
Guess what? There is not a model that's been created that has ever come close without "tweaking" some variables through creative "norming" or "hiding the decline" or .... you get the point. Their mission starts with using a model that they can manipulate to "prove" it works based on past data. The problem is, they have to manipulate the past data in a way that A) proves their model is accurate and B) shows catastrophic conditions for our future. This is why we haven't been hearing much about the models over the past few years. How do you build a model that will A) show no warming dating back to 1997 and B) using the same variables, prove that we are all gonna die in the future?
They are working on it and these guys must think they figured out how to creatively manipulate data to make the program work to fit their agenda.