What does a scientist do when his pet hypothesis is consistently disproved by modeling, data collection, observation, and analysis?
He admits he was wrong, and if true to his practice, he studies the data, offers a new hypothesis and if necessary, develops new models to compare with empirical data.
Correct?
Not if you're a "climate expert". All your models have been wrong, but you want the government and NGO money to keep flowing, so what do you do?
Blame the results on "natural variability" or "incomplete data", and keep on keepin' on...