Now this is not to imply that such simulations are without value. Even though solutions may diverge, they are still bounded. The boundedness comes in from the fact that there is a bounded amount of energy in the atmosphere, oceans, etc.
So here’s the question: How much better are these simulations than the simple global balances that predicted global warming back in the 1970s?
Finally, one of the first things I was taught about scientific research is that one should not become emotionally attached to the results. The reason for that advice is that we all have a tendency to see what we want to see in the results instead of what is really there. It seems to me that people on all sides of the climate change issue are so passionate that it would make it extremely difficult to do an objective piece of work. And that is sad.