If computer models never work then computer programming must be a hoax. Saying models don't necessarily match reality absolutely is a far cry from implying models are useless which is what your repeated skepticism of climate models seems to imply to me. If your skepticism applies only to climate models due to their INHERENT complexity then please admit for once that computer models are used routinely and effectively in all sorts of science and engineering applications. It is absolutely true that no model is 100% accurate because we can never account for all real world variables. However, to obfuscate the value of models which can predict general trends and cause and effect by emphasizing only that they have inherent error and place decision making in the realm of handwaiving is utterlly ridiculous and nonscientific. This is especially true given that a simple model that would only include CO2's known heat trapping effects would obviously predict global warming. I'm sure you have a lot more programming experience than me, but as someone who has done several years worth of programming including complex nonlinear simulations I find your comments on computer modeling very misleading.

The common sense no computer model arguement is that if you increase the amount of greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere it will warm up, not that there is no reason to believe CO2 emmissions will warm Earth. If you accept that we have a real potential issue our only choice to deal with it rationally is through computer modeling. Critique any aspect of any model you want, but to poo-poo the approach is not a rational point of view.

Regards,
Mark