I’m on neither side. I also wholeheartedly believe in anthropogenic climate change, but I think the commentary on climate science is about as ignorant and anti-scientific as the views espoused by young earth creationists. Climate models are flimsy as hell and have an atrocious track record of making predictions. Yet “the science is settled” (or a close approximation to it) is the only acceptable view in most circles. This gives climate change deniers a remarkably strong platform, because they can just say “climate scientists (or more often climate science communicators) are full of bs” and then point to countless examples where that is absolutely true. Science is never settled, in any case that you think it is, you’re not dealing with science, you’re dealing with an opinionated dogma. A statement which almost everybody would agree with, on any topic except climate change.
Computer models are used to try to predict the local effects of climate change, not prove whether it’s real. The basic science is settled, and no one needed computers to do it. Heck the hypothesis was first proposed over 100 years ago.
Computer climate models have trouble returning accurate predictions for exactly the same reasons it’s hard to make accurate weather forecasts. They’re attempting to do things on the edge what we know is possible. Personally, I would not call that “flimsy as hell.”
