They were " unable to predict the precise outcomes from models." of Covid progression. That was because what they feed into models to produce a forecast are -
1) Known facts from the past.
2) A selection of possible/probable reactions from human beings which will affect those facts in the future.
Whether what they get out is an accurate prediction depends on how many known facts they can feed in and which of the possible reactions to the warnings human beings choose to take.
With Covid, facts 1) were thin on the ground. Nevertheless, there were various predictions of how the pandemic would develop 2) depending on how seriously the threat was taken and what both the authorities and Joe Bloggs, the man in the street, did about it Governments acted on the warnings, though not evenly or efficiently. The men (and women) in the street were shocked and most moderated their habits. So between 1) and 2) the most disastrous predictions have not happened. So far.
With climate change, there is 1) a vast amount of data acuumulated over thousands of years of written evidence and millions more embedded in rocks and deep soil samples. 2) There have been predictions over decades of what would happen if nothing changed. Governments went their merry way, and Joe Bloggs and his wife mostly assumed, and still assume, that it was all something vague and scientific and wouldn't make any difference in their lifetime. The current position is that the predictions still stand and are becoming more urgent.
That is the difference between CoVid models and climate change models.
Used to be 3...( sigh )