Yes we all make mistakes. Most open minded and educated people can learn from them. Most modelers fall in that category. It's my understanding that most of these climate models are undergoing revision as new data is aquired just like the planetary formation modelers quickly adapted to new planetary data.

Your example falls squarely into one of the 2 main modeling pitfalls I mentioned and global warming models do have the same potential pitfall of being based on limited data in the Earth's case. However Venus and Mars are far outside Earth's variation and were the basis for these models. While limited, 3 widely different planets is far more diverse a basis than 1 solar system.

Again models are used all over the place and are not voodoo science. For every bad example you site there are far more working just fine. They are used in most fields of engineering for design work.

Rejecting models as evidence just because they are computer models is pure bull shit. They are simply mathematical representations of theories and building theories is a fundamental part of science. So is testing them and no theory is proven until adequately tested. They aren't, however, dismissed in scientific circles simply because they are theories. It is even worse logic to dismiss one model because an entirely unrelated one is obviously faulty.

Again, I don't claim models are conclusive just reason to be concerned.

Regards,
Mark