The GCM (climate models) have taken a beating in the past but have somehow always bounced back as the foundation for future climate projections (and thus CO2 reduction policies).
Will this latest beating change anything?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sceptic-rubbishes-computer-modelling-on-climate-change/story-e6frg6xf-1225827285274
Posted in 
Tags: 
Somewhat. But you can make global temperature projections just based on math and physics without plugging them into GCMs.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/not-computer-models/
Your claim that GCMs ‘have taken a beating’ is unsubstantiated and wrong.
The headline in your linked article was amusing. I didn’t realize you could make ‘rubbish’ a verb. But I got one sentence into and read this:
"Climate change sceptic William Kininmonth, a former director of the Bureau of Meteorology’s National Climate Centre, questioned the reliability of long-term predictions, given that the limit of accurate forecasts was about 10 days."
Then I stopped. The entire premise of the article is a meteorologist’s failure to distinguish between weather and climate. No point in reading further. As usual, a mainstream media article flunks climate science 101.