I'm agnostic on computer climate models. You simply don't need to know all the variables with absolute certainty to draw useful conclusions. You have to understand the bounds on your predictions. The more intellectually dishonest researchers are, the more likely they are to get mentioned in the popular press.
I have done computer modeling and use computer models at work, all the time. I think I know shoddy work when I see it. The climatologist do not seem particularly eager for Validation and Verfication of their models.
I agree. A computer model is only as good as it's input and programing, and the climate models leave much to be desired as they ignore important data(water vapor, solar variation, orbital positioning, etc.) and assume too much(warming, polar amplification, regional and topographical variance, etc.) to be remotely valid.
I wasn't attacking computer modeling per se, but the lack of validity in the climate modeling ones.