I think you're missing the point about computer models. They are not used for proving anything or predicting the future with certainty. Of course they can't be trusted: they are just our best guess about how something is going to work. After a model has been around for a long time and its results have shown to be sufficiently accurate, sometimes people start to accept it as being a good model and stop tinkering with it so much. Still, it's just a model.

****************
I completely agree with the above paragraph.
In fact that is the essence of any scientific theory. An accepted theory is the model that best approximates what we measure in science as reality.

Where I have problems is with computer models that because someone with a PhD in the field made them are naievely accepted in our technophiliac society as being the truth. The historical fact is that many flawed climate models have been touted in the press, with enthusiastic support by scientists, as accurately predicting the future. They don't.

Other relevant examples include the hilarious computer generated solar system models featured in Sagan's books & elsewhere. None of them generated Hot Jupiters or solar systems like we've detected so far. Instead, they gave the PhD astronomers what they expected.

-p