Do you think this is the case here? That the models have been tweaked for 50+ years to claim something that is not based on what actually happens?

> Do you think this is the case here?

No reason to believe these models are different ( it is not about the models, it is about the people building them ).

> that is not based on what actually happens?

That is not what I said. These models are used to say things about the future, so by definition they are an assumption about what actually happens.

I will try to explain my point by a fictitious example :

Researcher A is building model for global temperature supposedly correlated with compound X. Model shows that within 100 yrs the temperature will plateua and then drop off to pre-industrial levels.

The model will be considered faulty and will be tweaked until it does feel comfortable : that is, aligns with one's assumptions.

Models are crystalizations of one's assumptions, there is no truth.

Of course you use the intuition of experts within that field when building models, that's a given. I don't see what is wrong with that, that's how all models are built. But what is it that you're trying to say about climate models? State your own assumptions please, I don't want to keep playing this guessing game.