DanH which means that Prof. Curry’s assertion was clearly factually incorrect.
Nobody is claiming that consistency is a ringing endorsement of the models. It is pretty much the lowest hurdle, which is why caliming inconsistency is a big claim and why it is important for Prof. Curry to retract the claim so as not to promulgate a falsehood and further reduce the signal to noise ratio in the debate.
The really sad thing is the fact that so few seem to be able to bring themselves to explicitly say that the claim was wrong, when it so clearly is.