The reason for worry is that these same models have successfully projected global warming for a half century.
Even if that statement is true, is it not obvious that half a century of confirmation is an incredibly narrow window of time for a global model to be considered reliable in the long term? Wouldn't it take many thousands of years of correct predictions from measured data before an anomaly is something to worry over?
Agreed. Is the physical world really objectively observable? I think not. Even a million in consensus can be wrong by the smallest and most basic oversights, but we would be blessed if it not be scientists who do such a thing.
For science the fact that observations don't agree means there is progress. Isn't it true that consensus is the "Achilles heel" of scientific progress?
Anyone who imagines that all fruits ripen at the same time as the strawberries, knows nothing about grapes. -- Philippus Paracelsus