|Rate of temperature increase between 1984 and 2013 for IPCC AR5 models (8.5 scenario) versus Berkeley Earth Land + Ocean data, Cowtan-Way|
The true test of the AR5 models, however, is their accuracy since January 2000. That's the start of the actual predictions. That also poses a problem for determining whether or not the models are accurate. It's only been 14.58 years since January 2000. You need over 17 years to reliably detect actual climate trends in temperature data (Santer et al. 2011), making comparisons since January 2000 largely meaningless as the following graph shows.
Notice the massive 95% confidence intervals around the observed trends? The observed trends could be anything from less than -0.01ºC/year to over 0.03ºC/year. That range easily contains the average trend calculated from the IPCC AR5 models. So while it appears that the predicted average trend is far higher than the observed trends, the reality is that there's no statistical difference between the predicted and observed trends. And while I'm at it, there's also no evidence that global warming has stopped or even really slowed—just look at that possible range around the observed trends.
The reality is that right now, there is no statistical basis to determine if the IPCC AR5 models are wrong, even without accounting for random climate events like ENSO, volcanic eruptions, or changes in solar output. Published research shows that just accounting for ENSO alone explains much of the discrepancy between the predicted trends and the observed trends (i.e. Kosaka and Xie 2013, Risbey et al. 2014). The upshot of it all is that those proclaiming that the models are wrong are either greatly exaggerating or simply ignoring the evidence in favor of a simplistic and wrong view of how the world works.