Take a few minutes sometime and do a bit of research into the education required to be a climatologist. Contrary to what many belive, climatology is a soft science, meaning that one doesn't need much in the way of hard sciences (physics, chemistry) or mathematics (3000 level and above) in order to get the degree. Meteorologists are far more educated in the actual sciences than climatologist. Climatologists tend to lean towards computer programming but don't have the hard science background required to actually understand the physics they are trying to model and as a result, simply take the flawed basis for present climate science as truth with no real idea whether it represents fact or not. As a result, models are, at present a waste of time and money.
If you ask actual scientists, physicists, chemists, engineers, etc., who have a real background and education in the hard sciences, you will find that very few are on the manmade global warming bandwagon. They know that the basis upon which modern climate science is so terribly flawed, that it doesn't even bear serious consideration. The model upon which modern climate science is based is literally a flat earth that doesn't roate and receives only 1/4 of the energy that the earth in reality receives and has no night and no differentiation between the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere. How could anyone possibly believe that anything like accurate representations of the actual climate could come from a computer program that doesn't model anything like the real earth?
On top of a terribly flawed model, the physics that the terribly flawed models attempt to work with are absolute rubbish violating no less than 4 physical laws. First and second laws of thermodynamics, law of conservation of energy, and the Stefan-Boltzman laws being the most obvious.
