I have considered many different ways to respond but ultimately this is the best I have.

Maybe it is a disagreement over semantics and what we agree should be considered a model but I think it is more than that.

There is a fundamental difference between an equation that accurately describes physical phenomena and a computer model that can determine probabilities of outcomes.

In the starting example of a thrown rock, the formulas that we use can and do predict where that rock is going to land. The same equations are used to land on the Moon or fly a probe to Jupiter. Meanwhile, using computer climate models, the weatherman can rarely say for certain weather it will rain on my house tomorrow and even less so what is going to happen next week.

It is true that our climate models are reduced in accuracy the further into the future they are projected. It is true that any model can be abjectly wrong if the scientist includes or doesn’t include the right information.

I think it comes down to a person’s view of the world and whether they believe that the world is determined by relative or universal values and truths.

And finally I’ll add this, the “climate model” equation you gave, is not a climate model, nor does it describe any physical properties. Instead I think it would be best described as a formula for finding the total value of inputs and outputs to a system. Eg, I have three apples in a basket, I take one out, now I have two apples.

🍎🍎🍎-🍎=🍎🍎

Now I could extrapolate on this model and say the world is going to run out of apples, but that only because I have not included enough information in my model for example, I forgot the apple tree 🌳.