Do you have any examples you could point to? Most of their public comments on the topic of this thread look like this, noting the accuracy of predictions:
https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1597660277188677632
https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-cli...
Based on what little details you gave, I’m assuming you’re referring to the “hot models” paper:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01192-2
If so, the key point is that neither the IPCC nor NASA GISS reports are affected because they weight the models based on their accuracy predicting the past. This looks like the normal scientific process at work: ¼ of models are overly sensitive to CO2, careful validation caught it, and the major reports don’t have that problem because that review process worked. We also know that this is an increasing challenge human efforts do have a significant impact and if emissions go down that’ll be used by critics as proof that earlier predictions were wrong.
From a policy perspective, it’s also worth noting that there’s no credible reason to think warming will halt or reverse. At this point we have roughly half a century of models accurately predicting that we will have a big problem unless we stop polluting and we know the costs of the unavoidable warming are already measured in trillions. Trying to reduce error bars is always good but at this point it’s clear that acting seriously now will save many lives and enormous sums of money compared to letting the fossil fuel companies continue to encourage more rounds of “debate” on whether the problem is real.
