Now, I am convinced that manmade global warming is a fraud. The basis of this opinion comes from the "settled science" argument leading to "denier" status. Quite frankly it reminds me too much of Galileo being jailed for the heliocentric theory rather than science which the art of constant proof. The models have failed to predict performance which means the hypothesis is flawed and needs to be discarded.
The claim that it's "settled science" comes more from politician than scientists though, doesn't it?
I can imagine that the models may have been pushed out at the demand of politicians rather than the scientists themselves being so confident. I think most scientists would tell you that the history of scientific discovery is full of errors and mistakes. That's how they find the truth. It's a rather new area of expertise, and I assume modelling the entire atmospheric system and the solar effects upon it, is rather difficult. But a failed model does not mean the hypothesis is flawed. There are other reasons, such as factors that were either ignored or unseen.
So I agree that there should never have been any claim about the science being settled. Far too divisive. But I can't see the logic in denying the possibility simply because someone else labelled you a "denier" for not believing.
ETA: Here's some info about what models have got right.
How good are the models now?
Source: Barton Paul Levenson
"Let’s review the successful predictions of the models."
That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much.
That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.
Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.
They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
The expansion of the Hadley cells.
The poleward movement of storm tracks.
The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
The expanded range of hurricanes and cyclones--a year before Cyclone Catarina showed up off the coast of Brazil, something which had never happened before.
"Looks like a pretty good track record to me. Are there problems with the models, and areas where they haven't gotten it right yet? Sure there are. The double Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone which shows up in some coupled models, ENSO variability, insufficiently sensitive sea ice, diurnal cycles of moist convection, and the exact response of climate to clouds are all areas of ongoing research. But the models are still the best thing we have for climate prediction under different scenarios, and there is no reason at all to think they're getting the overall picture wrong."
From here:
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/climate-models