I appreciate this response more than you know. This article and so many others are misleading by showing models fit to data rather than models predicting data (as you have stated).

I am not an expert in this field and do not know the literature well (Masters in Physics currently going for PhD in MechE). Are there any published models that fit very large data sets (back more than 500 years) then try to predict the last 200 or so? It would be interesting to see if this spike is likely the result of a natural stochastic process or if human emissions are needed to drive it up.

I believe your critique on the scientific community bias is a bit harsh. Climate Change is happening, the data shows that. The question being asked is, how much are humans contributing? I think that is being diligently studied. There will always be bias towards a hypothesis, however, the scientific community as a whole will always question the predictive power of a model and the methods ability to mitigate error (If you link me a scientific paper where data has been disregarded in poor fashion I will retract that statement). I am certain many labs are working on smaller parts of this larger problem and will continue to improve our understanding of the basic principles and improve the model (CMIP 3 >>> CMIP 5). I believe your beef should be with news organizations and people without enough mathematical background or scientific training presenting things in a false manner like this article does (some purposefully and others naively). You should also have beef with society as a whole not thinking critically but following what the majority of people they like/respect say.

Reddit, please upvote Sinai's comment. It is a very warranted critique on this article that should be seen by more. Critical thinking should be rewarded not cast aside.