You don't know what science is, because you speak of "proof". There is no proof. There is only evidence and the strength of evidence.
" Global warming computer models are absolute nonsense"
No they are not. The strength of any one of them relies on the accuracy of the model. It's that simple.
"They've created evidence"
No one can create evidence.
You have all the signs of worshiping a false god. The models are nonsense, not because the elements included are fabricated (although some are), but because vast known variables of unknown magnitude are discounted, not because they aren't important, but simply because they can't be quantified. Additionally, fudge numbers must always be inputted into the models to get them to properly predict the known past. The fudge numbers aren't scientific, they are simply the margin of error.
I know unscientific nonsense when I see it, and I'm not impressed with PhDs that like to play make-believe.
No proof huh? I'll bite, when the available evidence is concrete and not conjecture, and when that evidence can produce the same predictable outcome every single time that its tried, I call that proof. You can call it strong evidence if you wish. In fact, get scientists to do just that, and I'll be happy.
There is a great deal of difference between blindly reaching into a box of unknown size and contents, pulling out two matching pieces and pronouncing "all evidence shows", and inventorying all pieces in a box of known size and pronouncing "all evidence shows".