Cliff, again thanks for your response.  Okay, but a 5- or 10-day weather model can be retuned every 5 or 10 days to closer match reality for the next time.  Not so with a model that's trying to see decades into the future, so they're basically untestable, which kind of calls into question the scientific basis of the whole endeavor since scientific theories are supposed to be falsifiable.  And wouldn't the proof of the theory behind the climate models be that the models make accurate predictions?  My impression is that they've all been running too hot, which would indicate less actual sensitivity to CO2 than modeled.

Patrick Frank wrote that paper in Skeptic a few years back about climate models where he seemed to show that the radiative effect due to the average annual cloud error in GCMs was about equal to the entire radiative effect of anthropogenic CO2 since the start of the Industrial Revolution, rendering model predictions worthless even a few years out.  Any thoughts on that?