Complex physics modelling doesn't rely on holding other variables constant. The whole point is to capture the complex interactions.
Exactly.
For complex, non-linear chaotic physical and chemical systems of entropy, how can it possibly be known what are and what aren't deterministic factors.
"Engineers rely on models every day. The transistors in the computer you are using right now were designed using complex physics modelling which took into account physical processes you've never heard of."
Compositional fallacy; the transistors in my computer are designed and manufactured using proven mathematical formulae such as Fourier transforms, all of which are based on empirically-derived electromagnetic evidence.
Those transistor models are based on constructs proven in laboratory settings and so wherein all the variables are known and able to be accurately defined.
The evolution of a planet's atmosphere has absolutely no where remotely close to that level of deterministic certainty.
"Is it right to be skeptical? Within reason. When different modelling techniques show similar answers, jaded old engineers like myself take notice even before looking at physical reality."
Models that project an established trend reflect nothing other than correlations.
They are no measure of causality.
"And when the models start to match reality in the way that last year's climate did, then it's definitely time to pay attention."
Except that they don't. They have been proven to be inordinately alarmist.
Ironically, this has served the cause of climate conservation poorly because all it has done is provided fodder for people, with an otherwise centrist view, to view the modelling of climate scientists with cynicism.
