It is no surprise to me and other Anthropogenic Global Warming skeptics that many of the predictions made by the AGW faithful have failed to materialize. As Andrew Bolt wrires:
If your current computer models can't predict the known past from retroactively entered data, then why, precisely, would you expect them to accurately predict the future.
You can't, of course.
Computer models—all computer models—do nothing more than produce an extrapolation from the assumptions that are programmed into them. The input always determines the output.
Moreover, when it comes to climate, the number of variables is so incredibly large, and often prone to chaotic effects—that I don't believe anyone has ever built, or realistically can ever build a valid computer model with our current state of computer technology.
I use computer models to predict the behavior of electronic circuits, and while they are not nearly as complex as climate models, they still have errors that will throw off the accuracy of the circuit model here and there. With circuit models we're only dealing with a few hundred well defined parameters with errors measured in fractions of a percent. With climate models, we're dealing with millions of parameters with a 1, 5, 10, 25 or even 50% margin of error. If a simple electronic circuit model can show a measurable error in its results with barely measurable errors in the input, how can anyone honestly say extremely complex climate models with wide margins of error on its inputs won't show large errors in its results? I guess it's easy if your one of the AGW faithful.