"Often scientists with simulation models are followers rather than leaders of scientific explanations. Without knowing the assumptions and limitations of the model, I have no idea whether these simulations are temporarily self serving (matching current rather biased data collection). As an expert on simulation, I find the information provided way to limited to draw any kind of conclusions. I am a believer in simulation as a tool, but when modeling the unknown missing some slight factor can radically alter the results. Simulation is usually better at modeling something already well defined than exploring totally new vistas.

Precisely. And simulations based on hard physical laws are credible, items like building or bridge stress, aerodynamics and especially nuclear physics particle interactions. They're basicly 'calculations'. I have serious skepticism about simulations that use ad hoc empirical parameters, yes like the k positive feedback amplifier in AGW models. The simulation proponent can pretty much get the result they 'want'.

Bottom line is here we have various solar system simulations that contradict each other. Even the one that turns out to be 'right' really isn't because at this date we don't know enough of the governing physical mechanisms and their non liner sensitivities to make a real math model. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try because the simulation endeavor often tells you things about what you do not know or what is possibly a really sensitive factor.