Anyone who is familiar with how models 'work', as far as deciding what is included and what is not included, along with subjective parameter choices and weights and other types of tuning and adjustments and algorithms and statistical legerdemain and fudge factors and opinions, as well as the potential for undiscovered coding errors to creep in from both custom and boilerplate code, and the ability of the modelers to make as many runs of the model as desired, throwing out results that do not provide the 'right answer', is aware that a better phrasing of the partial quote above would be: "using complex new modeling, we know that any desired result of the model can be achieved at the whim of the modelers..."
Other climate models have shown no 'skill' at predicting effects at a regional level, yet this one claims to do so.
Keep in mind also that scientists don't even have a proper handle on accurately modeling the influence of something as commonplace as clouds on the climate and its changes.
But... remember how complex modelling of financial markets prevented the great stock market crash of 2008 and all of the disruptions that it caused? No? Neither do I. And yet, the best modelling and risk management minds on the planet had been doing 'complex modelling' designed to help us avoid such financial risks.
Why would anyone with a sound mind believe that these scientists have figured it out correctly from their 'complex modelling'? How much tweaking of the model and various model initialization inputs and runs was required for them to come up with the 'right' (predetermined) answer? And how could it possibly be tested?
Properly-constructed models can indeed be used to inform and test hypotheses, within appropriate limits. However it would take an enormous leap of (unsubstantiated) faith to believe that the modelling reported here is fit for the purpose of "allowing people to plan for whatever may be coming."
Our local weather forecasts on one channel are actually quite decent and accurate.
BUT their chief meteorologist, the best in the area, often talks of the differences in the 2 main models he utilizes: the European Model, and the U.S. Model. The more disagreement between the models, the more personal experience and other information he draws upon...but he never relies upon the models alone.
The other local stations seem to rely entirely upon modeling, with spotty results.
Just seeing the active weather forecasting models in action should tell anyone all they need to know about climate models.