That’s not really what the study shows. If you read the study it shows that the gap between the calculated and measured warming since the turn of the century is not due to systematic errors of the models, but because there are always random fluctuations in Earth’s climate. The study also showed that that the models do not generally overestimate human-made climate change and that global warming is therefore highly likely to reach critical proportions by the end of the century. The study also states, “The claim that climate models systematically overestimate global warming caused by rising greenhouse gas concentrations is wrong.”
Really, you should read the study itself, not some spinsters interpretation of it.
Only the abstract of the study is available to the public. The rest of it is behind a pay wall.
Speaking as a scientist, because my field is not even remotely related to meteorology, I have to say that the abstract is very difficult to read. I simply do not have the background knowledge and understanding of the field to interpret it, and I am sure that the same would be true of the paper itself. I do not doubt that the statement, “The claim that climate models systematically overestimate global warming caused by rising greenhouse gas concentrations is wrong,” that you quoted is in the study. However, it is difficult to place in context. Is it actually consistent with the results of the study, stating a logical conclusion derived from the data? Or is it what I like to call a “throwaway” pro-anthropogenic global warming statement, which is not logically related to any of the data but tossed in to make the study look like further support of the AGW model in order to make the authors more competitive for funding?
In the biological sciences, I constantly see phrases like “because of global warming” thrown in as possible explanations for the data, no matter how unrelated the data is to AGW, or how many other, genuinely plausible, explanations for the observations exist. That practice occurs completely for the funding, not the science.