Great comment Louise!
“one in three lucky guess” is a great way to look at all the model rule sets given a climate system that is so poorly understood.
The reason I give credence to the notion the system is poorly understood is the number of 2011 research proposals focused on “a better understanding” of the water cycle, carbon cycle, the role of salinity in the various cycles, AR5 inclusion of formerly undefined aspects like clouds, etc…
Scafetta’s rule set includes natural cycles and places the deviations in context thus giving a more accurate representation of the induced impact of AGW. It’s very logical from my perspective and gives a cleaner view of the AGW implications within a chaotic system that seeks but will thankfully never achieve equilibrium.
The implication of the new monthly update on WUWT presents the IPCC projects as a run away projection which may no longer be true. In fact, it may have never been the case?