Climate models are failures, because the coding of these applications was a fraud to start with. 95% of climate models are so far divorced from observational reality that they are useless. This is no surprise to those of us who inhabit the world of software. We know that models imitating complexity and many to many relationships are nearly impossible to build, when the complexity of those relationships stretches from the thousands into the millions of possible variable interactions. Given our ignorance of climate, model failure is a given.

The cult of warm is not about science, but philosophy. The presupposition and world-philosophical-view behind climate model creation by quackitists and quackademics is that the 20 ppm [parts per million] of natural necessary Co2, which is emitted by mankind, causes an atmosphere akin to Venus, where Co2 is 95% of the atmosphere. There is no relationship between Venus and Earth but this is what the cult of science demands us to believe. If we are not careful, the 20 ppm trace chemical will become 950 thousand ppm. This is to put it mildly, beyond stupid. Yet this philosophical-materialist world-view, so roundly applauded by the cult 'science' and their political benefactors and media; indicates that Co2, which is mandatory as the vital part of the complex process to allow life, is now a toxin and pollutant.

This unscientific, amoral and inane assertion is taught as 'fact'. In reality there are quite likely 1 million interactions in climate including the local, regional, and cosmic. Feedback loops within and between the various levels of climate interaction are complicated and poorly understood. This reality ensures that climate models will be dismal failures.

I have been in Software for 20 years, I can assure you, that modelling the climate is impossible and will always be inaccurate. You can’t model many to many relationships, including those you don’t even understand……

“Perhaps most important of all, however, is the 31 researchers’ conclusion that “even areas of substantial agreement among models may not imply more confidence that projections are correct, as common errors or deficiencies in model parameterizations may provide false confidence in the robustness of future projections.” Link

and

A real scientist: “These are all interesting exercises, but they miss the most important point: the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably. I’ve updated our comparison of 90 climate models versus observations for global average surface temperatures through 2013, and we still see that >95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH): Link

Climate scientism is a fraud. It is about money, grants, power, control and egos. It has nothing to do with science.