Did you ever bother to check out who wrote your link. It turns out that he is a science fiction writer who writes macabre stories about the future. Not one you would consider to be knowledgable about climate models. He claimed that the models are accurate without saying which. Funny thing is if he had said which then we could check them out and discover if they are still as accurate. Most of the models (the IPCC's for example) went from accurate to inaccurate within five years. So many claims that models are accurate have since been dropped.<quoted text>
Science "proven wrong"? That's what YOU WISH, not what's happened. If you believe this, then you're blinded by the radical right wing media nutteria.
Yes, there was an "oops" about Himalayan glaciers in ONE SMALL PART of the IPCC report, while other, more important, parts of the report did NOT make the Himalayan mistake. Climatologists are human. They occasionally make mistakes.
Those things don't invalidate the theory, which has proven to be incredibly powerful in making predictions. Depending on how you count them, the theory has made between 17 & 20 predictions. That's pretty darn good IYAM.
The real issue is politics and always has been. Even your own post with it's remarks about "radical right wing media nutteria" is proof. Funny how people like you talk about radical RW while never mentioning radical LW. In that it tends to point out that where you stand is where some would refer to as the radical LW and to you anything that isn't to the left of the issue is radical RW.
Which only is further proof that it is nothing more than politics and this has little to do with science.