If climate alarmists rely on computer models, and the models suck, where does that leave them?

The short answer is, "wrong:"

Climate models relied upon by scientists and governments may be greatly overstating the warming that has occurred since the late 1950s, argues a paper analyzing the discrepancies between modeled and observed temperatures.
The paper, which was published in the journal Environmetrics, found that observed temperatures differed greatly from modeled temperatures in the tropical lower troposphere and mid-troposphere.
“Over the 55-years from 1958 to 2012, climate models not only significantly over-predict observed warming in the tropical troposphere, but they represent it in a fundamentally different way than is observed,” says Ross McKitrick, economist with the University of Guelph in Canada and co-author of the study.
According to McKitrick, all climate models predict that rising carbon dioxide levels will cause rapid warming in the troposphere over the tropics. But that’s not what has happened, as neither satellites nor weather balloons have detected much warming in the tropical troposphere — meaning something is likely wrong with the models.
It’s not only that the models overestimate the amount of warming in the tropical troposphere, it’s that the models misrepresent the warming by making it look like a “smooth upward trend.” But McKitrick says that observations show all the warming occurred in a “single step-change in the late 1970s coinciding with a known event (the Pacific Climate Shift), and identify no significant trend before or after.

All along, the alarmists have been emphasizing the surface temperature record, which they control and can manipulate, when the signature of anthropogenic global warming -- the linchpin of the theory -- is warming in the tropical mid-troposphere, which is not happening. Basically, the warmists' models suck at predicting actual events, which leads to events like this one, where a NASA scientist tries to explain away the fact that none of the computer models based on "settled science" predicted the 15-year pause in warming in the surface temperature record, which the warmists at NASA and other agencies control. Even he had to admit that the disconnect between the models and reality is "really forcing us to look at our models and observations and ask questions.” Settled science? Perhaps not.

In fact, even the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has to admit that its models are crap:

Computer models, of course, are only as accurate as their programmed data, formulas, and assumptions. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) acknowledges there are many components to climate change for which climate scientists are merely making their best guesses. The IPCC-affiliated scientists have made guesses that the unknown climate components will dramatically accelerate the modest warming caused directly by human carbon dioxide emissions. So-called climate skeptics have argued the UN guesses consistently overestimate the warming propensity of the unknown climate components.

If the agency driving most climate alarmism based on its models predictions admits that its models are crap and are affected by unknown elements, how can anyone claim the science is settled? More importantly, why would anyone accept any prediction based upon those models as reliable? And yet, that is where we are. Who's anti-science?