The average climate model simulation (prediction, projection, BS, etc.) represents the government bureaucrat climate science consensus.
Computer game 'predictions' ARE the personal opinions of the computer owners / programmers.
The 'prediction' is whatever he or she wants to predict.
The computer calculates based on assumptions.
And the assumptions can be changed to get the desired prediction.
The desired prediction is what the government bureaucrat scientists are paid to predict -- rapid, potentially dangerous in the long run, global warming.
Anyone who believes these models are intended to make ACCURATE global average temperature predictions is very gullible.
These computer games have had about 40 years to be refined, and become more accurate.
In fact, it appears new CMIP6 models will be even less accurate than the old CMIP5, models, based on what is known about CMIP6 models so far.
I will make a bold prediction (bold because I'd don't like to make predictions, but this is an easy one) -- CMIP7 models will predict even faster global warming than CMIP6 models did.
These models have nothing to do with real science.
Real science requires fairly accurate predictions, that get better over time.
These computer games started with inaccurate predictions, and have never improved over many decades.
So what purpose do climate computer games serve?
Their purpose is political.
They serve as props to support repeated predictions of a coming climate crisis.
I believe those predictions started in 1957, with oceanographer Roger Revelle, back in the old days when scientists had uncertainty.
So why predict a coming climate crisis that never happens ... getting louder, and more hysterical, every year?
Simple.
When people fear a crisis, whether real (COVID) or imaginary (climate emergency), they turn toward their government for help.
Scared citizens allow their government to seize more power, and tell them how to live.
A leftist leader or bureaucrat ALWAYS wants to do that -- having a crisis makes it much easier -- never let a crisis go to waste, they say.
The models are props that appear scientific, and support the generation of climate change fear.
Most people who have lived through mild, harmless global warming for the past 45 years, since the mid-1970s, have been convinced that future global warming will be completely different than past global warming -- rapid and dangerous.
The models help with that persuasion.
They models are doing what they are intended to do.
Accurate predictions are NOT their intended purpose.
If accuracy was important, the Russian INM model would be celebrated (it over predicts global warming less than other models), and other models would be generally ignored.