It needs to be mentioned here that the big computer models are very expensive to run. Little computer models aren't much use these days. Big computer models are totally non-political and also non-agenda-driven. Real scientists don't waste time with such things that would surely end their careers.
I wouldn't knock little computer models as long as you run them on enough computers. (Though it's not a model, this was how the most recently discovered largest prime number was found.)
As much as I wish you were right, you are not. There are about a dozen big computer models that run and all of them give quite different results. They are full of way too many assumptions and they are worst case assumptions. The modellers are not modelling facts, but are modelling the assumption of global warming, and they all put too much weight on the assumption that most all warming is due to man-made CO2. We are not even close to understanding the global system to really model it, so even if everything else I said was false (which it isn't) the models would not be dependable enough to predict anything. The modellers readily admit there are gapping holes in the models are they are too many facts we really don't know. But yet 'scientist' quote these models as if they are fact and use the models to prove stuff. It is really bizzaar from a scientific standpoint.