How can climate models accurately predict the future of our planet if it is not even possible to correctly reproduce the climate of the past?

Answer: Change the data to fit the models, it's the M.O. of AGWism.

Cantdrive85, do you have any specific evidence that suggests TEX86 still applies to sea-surface temperatures, or are you here to supply the usual verbal diarrhea ?

Scientists use inconsistencies as an opportunity to learn. Demagogues and their ignorant followers use inconsistencies as an opportunity to obscure.

"By their fruit you will recognize them"

LOL.
The AGW Cult's climate models can't "predict" the last 30 years but not to worry, they have now nailed the Eocene. Why bother wasting time and millions "cooking" the data to match the prophesies when they can keep fooling the Chicken Little idiots by just looking into their CO2 filled crystal ball.

Scientists use inconsistencies as an opportunity to learn. Demagogues and their ignorant followers use inconsistencies as an opportunity to obscure.

"By their fruit you will recognize them"

Hallelujah!!! The faith is strong in this one.

Lest we forget, AGW Cult "science" vindicated their climate models for missing the globull warming pause, that their "science" now claims, never was. Well....at least not before their "science" fabricated... er...excuse...produced, 66 peer (pal) reviewed papers confirming the pause.
Hmm.... wonder what the Chicken Littles learned from those inconsistencies?

As usual Chicken Little, blinded by its willful ignorance, omitted the most important part of that quote. "Watch out for false prophets....".

This is really a pretty big deal, in a small aspect of climate science, in that it really does constrain and normalize temperatures across all time periods up to at least 65 million years ago. It also removes what is essentially the last coherent argument of the denialist manfesto - that there are archaic temperature regimes that are not captured by the models. This shows that the models are robust and can be relied upon to give a accurate (not exact) forecast of future warming and some of its consequence,

Continuing denial in the face of such overwhelming evidence is clearly and simply a matter of political desire. There is certainly no science to support such a stance - and frankly, I am not convinced there ever really was.

Continuing BELIEF in the face of such overwhelming LIES is clearly and simply a matter of STUPIDITY.

Fixed that sentence for you.
Hopefully the cult will get around to "fixing" the temperatures of the last 60 years so that the models can be "correct" where they really matter.
https://judithcur...reality/

"The problem is the outdated models that climate scientists use as gospel"

Update models based on new information

"See, I told you that climate science was wrong".

Pick one. Because it seems to me the scientists are mostly just doing science.

"The problem is the outdated models that climate scientists use as gospel"

The problem is the FRAUDULENT models that climate CHARLATANS use as FACT.

Update models based on new information

Update REALITY based on new FRAUD (discovered by the heretics).

"See, I told you that climate science was wrong".

See, I told you that climate CULTISM was RIGHT.

Pick one. Because it seems to me the scientists are mostly just doing science.

No need to pick, because it's OBVIOUS to EVERYONE the CHARLATANS are ONLY just doing DOGMA.
------------------------
Fixed your typos.

Yet another nail in the deniers coffin, not much coffin left, basically all nails now.
Hey anti, getting prickly in there?

Ahhhh now thats fixed,,, but do the models take into account the movement of all the butterfly wings in the world?

Zoologist bemoans the continuing loss of butterfly species: http://www.eartha...bars/560

it's OBVIOUS to EVERYONE the CHARLATANS are ONLY just doing DOGMA.

You shout because your arguments are weak.

He shouts and denigrates because his arguments are non-existent. And because he is a petulant child.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

No one's paying protection money for us.

Awww....poor scarecrow, astonished that no one will pay him.
https://www.youtu...LgZISozs

"The problem is the outdated models that climate scientists use as gospel"

Update models based on new information

In this case, not even that; the model wasn't changed, one of the inputs was, because it was being incorrectly interpreted. Comparing it to other evidence from the same time periods showed where the discrepancy was, not fitting it to the models, as is implied by "gospel."

Typical climate denier lie #5,346.

"See, I told you that climate science was wrong".

Pick one. Because it seems to me the scientists are mostly just doing science.

"Climate science" shows the lack of actual knowledge of the subject. It's called "geophysics."

On Earth.

the models don't work

They do now.

Maybe you should read the article again.

Bah, all you've got is to shout denialist fantasy again.

Boring.

The term "Climate Science"

is populist garbage. The correct term is "geophysics."

Even if they could program a computer to do their "guess-work" for them

The "guess-work" seems to work fine for weather, not to mention ship and aircraft propellers, jet aircraft engines, computer and other electronics engineering, and a huge laundry list of technological advances that you use every day of your life.

Science denier trolls are easy to bait.

@rodkeh, by your own arguments- and their flaws- shall ye be known.

Yours reveal complete abandonment of reason because it tells you things you don't want to hear.

I would love to find out that AGW is incorrect. I would love to find out I could eat all the beef I want and it wouldn't kill me with a heart attack. I would love to find out there's really an invisible super magic daddy in the sky that could make my life better if I just asked. I would love to find out we can get to the stars without spending a whole lifetime doing it.

The evidence says not.

The evidence says, you have a great deal to find out.

The evidence-- your own comments, which lack any of the evidence you claim-- says you don't know any of it.

You wouldn't know evidence, if it slapped you up the side of the head.

I'm looking at evidence you're a troll.

And you are a drag and a bore!

You resort to insults, which are fantasy, when faced with truth you don't like.

That's trolling.

You are a troll.

That's not an insult. It's a statement of fact based on the evidence of your own behavior.

You don't want to understand the difference so you pretend not to.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.