Add to that the fact the climate computer models have failed real-life calibration every time. Florida was supposed to be flooded by now.
All those models are another story. I do a lot of computer modeling of power plants. You build a generalized model using proper physics and the various equipment vendor specifications and test data, get it to accurately reproduce the turbine and boiler vendor heat balances. Then you run the model with ONLY the heat inputs to the boiler/reactor and the circulating water and/or air temperatures/humidity and see how closely it reproduces the data from the plant instrumentation. If it fails to do so, it must be tweaked until it reproduces the plant data over the entire range of environmental conditions. You can then use the model to help keep the plant running at top efficiency.
Climate models should be the same way. The problem is that the planetary climate is a HUGE and very complex entity. So far, no model has been able to accurately encompass it. None of them can accurately reproduce past data worldwide, hell, not even locally, using just the solar input and heat from the earth's core as the only inputs. All of them are tweaked to predict the doom that never seems to come.
I have stated in the past that if I had submitted a technical paper to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that commits fraud like those climate models do, I'd be put in prison. Yet those so called "climate scientists" are celebrated and continue to be given taxpayer funds to keep perpetuating their fraud.
