Woah, that is a number of rather fantastic leaps.
First you claim my argument is a non-sequitur. My argument is that the model is not accurate enough to qualify as hard science. My premises are that the sample size of 50 years is not a statistically significant sample of billions of years of behavior. That premise does indeed seem to relate to my conclusion in that demonstrates the evidence supporting the model is not statistically significant. My next premise is that the model proved to be accurate to only a single decimal place meaning there was a 10% chance of having reached an equally correct answer by purely random number generation or guessing. That premise also supports my conclusion. My final premise was that the answer the model predicted, 7, is also statistically the answer most likely to be guessed by random laymen meaning an actual human being making a guess had a far greater than 10% chance of giving a result as accurate as this model. Now, you may attack my premises but the argument present is valid and of correct structure therefore not a non-sequitur.
"Hindcasting is the standard method to test any FEA model, doesn't matter if you are modeling the casting of an engine block or the earth's climate."
Indeed, and in the case of climate what you lack is a sound statistically significant sample of reliable historical data. Your examples of other areas of science where massive variance is still considered an accurate result share this common problem they all lack a statistically significant set of reliable data upon which to base their models. Just because it's the best you can do with what you have to work with and can be better than nothing or even useful for some purposes doesn't mean you start pretending the results of those models or any model in those fields shouldn't be taken with greater skepticism than more exact sciences. Some fields are vast enough that there are both flavors of science within them with certain types of models providing very exact results and other models being best effort so far but you shouldn't exactly go killing your child to prevent a more horrible consequence predicted by one.
Your own argument is a non-sequitor. I have no idea what "MSM articles" refers to. I have not stated any sort of political agenda in this thread although in others I've stated that rather than trying to convince everyone to behave differently climate models indicate it is too late for this to resolve the issue whether humans are the cause or not. So elsewhere I have suggested this should be treated as an engineering problem and we need not only combat the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions (which are natural) for the biggest bang for the buck but we must engineer mass scale sequestering technologies which likely means GMOs. Introducing methane processing GMO gut bacteria in livestock also seems like a reasonable action to me. Why do I suggest taking these actions when I think our climate models lack a high degree of certainty? Because they still remain the best guess we have and the risks of heeding it are low while the consequences of failing to do and it proving to be any level of correct are devastating.
"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."
Why would I do that? That is a strawman, I'm arguing you need greater precision to demonstrate the validity of your model before it can be trusted with a reasonable degree of certainty. Climate models aren't needed to show the poles are melting or that the earth is getting warmer.
Demonstrating that the Earth's climate is changing and the poles are melting are demonstrable with measurements taken that are built on classic physics models that have met 8 digits of precision predictions thousands of times over again. These are simple facts. They hardly prove that any climate model is an exact science, the failure of the model to predict the result of those measurements with an equal level of precision merely demonstrates it is less sound than the models used to build the instruments which are used to test it. Even the more classic physical models used to build such instrumentation, they are well proven to behave as expect on or near Earth today but lack the proof over time to show the same results and physical constants behind them were valid a billion years ago or will be valid a billion years from now.