In what you describe, there is no problem with the computer modeling. It's the making up of data, the use of unproven and unprovable assumptions, and modifications after the fact to achieve a particular outcome that betray climate changists as charlatans.
Scientific computer modeling works and works well in many applications.
GiGo
Models work when they can be validated.
Comuputer models of climate do not have the data base to validate the models.
Weather simulation models work because they are constantly validated and refined. A weather model can be checked against reality several times per month, every day, or a few times per day if it is evaluated on a short time frame.
The climate models deal in hundreds of years, decades at minimum, and they do not do well against the small amount of data that we have (relatively).
>>Scientific computer modeling works and works well in many applications.
I didn’t say that it doesn’t. But you have to face facts that computer modeling is an easily corrupted thing that can be held before the ignorant public and told that it is an accurate predictor of reality. In things like hydraulic modeling or actuarial predictions that have plenty of cause-and-effect data to ensure accuracy, this is true. But, in things like climate “science” or “how many people will an armed teacher save”, there is not enough data to prove that the conclusions are anything but opinion that is written into the code.