Silly @josie, surely you know better: It’s all predicted!
No matter what the weather climate does, it all fits somebody’s model, so it’s all predicted and it’s all Bush’s fault, too. “The climate models that seem most reliable” is a contradiction in terms. There are no climate models that are at all “reliable” in terms of predicting actual outcomes (much less predicting “weather”, which is still more art than science), but somebody’s model, within the wide range of predictions that have been made (and generally disproven) will once in a while have a data point fall within its predicted curve, and this is trumpeted as “accuracy in modeling”. Then the model will be shelved until another data point somehow manages to land within the wide range of “predicted outcomes” and more headlines will ensue. There is no such thing as “a reliable climate model”, for starters.
The fact is that climate is so hugely complex and our observations are so rudimentary (and few, given that we’re talking about global scale here) and prone to error and falsification, and our models themselves are so weak, given how little we actually know about what makes ice ages and interglacial periods happen (because every ice age and warming event until now positively cannot have been anthropomorphical, and yet ice ages and warming periods have happened before in Earth’s history) that all we can tell with some degree of certainty is that some warming seems to be happening in some parts of the planet’s atmosphere and ground. Even that much knowledge is not as certain as some would like to believe, because there have been problems with the processes used to gather the data – so even that knowledge is not a slam-dunk certainty.
We also know that humans have made changes to the atmosphere. Yes, that is also pretty certain. But whether the human-caused changes to the atmosphere have actually caused “climate change” is up for debate – among the scientists who still practice, you know, science.