I hate to say it, but your posts are a great example of the generally low quality of discourse on this subject. Veiled threats of verbal beatdowns and ridiculous claims like that climate models that have to be updated monthly are as solid as Newtonian dynamics do not indicate intellectual honesty or rationality.
Just as if somebody said incredibly contrary things about well established computing principles, you are doing yourself a disservice by not doing basic research while denying well accepted technical facts.
This is not being skeptical, it's being lazy.
That said, I'm also being lazy too, because it's very hard to spoon feed basic science to those who don't want to learn it. I guess I was hoping to motivate you to take an interest in researching scientific subjects that you are willing to express uninformed opinions on, but I will accept that I have failed after your last response.
Established computing principles are theorems that are true by construction, the strongest possible form of truth.
Climate models are fancy regression fits to low quality data. We know the raw data is low quality because it requires intense amounts of adjustment before the model makers can use it.
You have correctly assessed your ability at persuasion.
