Last I check you need at least eight decimal places and statistically significant sample not to be laughed out of most fields.
In cosmology and astrophysics getting a result that is within a few orders of magnitude is considered "accurate". In archeology a radioactive dating result with 10% is considered a "good result". Science isn't all about measuring the width of a proton, other than particle physics, there are actually very few scientific fields that "demand" eight decimal places of accuracy.
The problem I have with critiques of climate models like yours is they are non-sequiturs and born from ignorance, they don't make any sense because they are sourced from MSM articles that (for political reasons) aim to convince you that modeling physical phenomena is some kind of scam that scientists are using to make money. If you want to critique the models then write a paper explaining why you need "eight nines" to convincingly demonstrate to others that the north pole is melting. There are lists of rebuttals to these fake critiques on the web, skepticalscience is one of the better ones, I'm sure you will find a few of your favorite talking points torn to shreds on that page..
"Parents React," "Celebrities React," and "Parents React";
"Just Say No." - Nancy Reagan "No." - Ronald Reagan