Well if your asserting that I'm in denial of the problem because I don't like the solution, then in all honesty, you have to seriously consider that there are significant numbers of persons that have created a problem for the purpose of requiring their desired solution, such as UN Agenda 21.
Non sequitur. Unless you were trying to give another example of that same flawed reasoning.
They know that weather is an instance of climate, and if weather is chaotic, then by definition climate is chaotic...
This is a tired argument. The path of an individual photon as it travels from Earth to space is chaotic and unpredictable; that it will be either absorbed as heat or ultimately re-emitted to space is a certainty. It's very easy to make statistical claims about how often this will happen and how long it will take, and this can generally be confirmed by satellite measurement.
...some models are counting butterflies in a 22.5 km^2 cell and others in a 62.5 km^2 cell.
And some models are two-dimensional and do not use cells at all. You are very obviously not qualified to evaluate the usefulness of any of them.
Even worse is 70% of the planet is water and water is where most of the planet's most effective heat engine is, and there is almost no monitoring of conditions there.
This is an important area of study but it is a non sequitur in discussions of composition changes in the upper atmosphere and the effects on radiative transfer. The oceans are a heat engine, but their effects are confined to this planet; the other end of the heat pipe is not in space.
The bottom line is if we can't predict the weather 30 days out, there is no reason to believe we can predict the climate a century from now.
False. You can easily make statistical claims about weather more than 30 days out; in most areas in the Northern Hemisphere you may confidently predict that July will be warmer than December, and further make accurate predictions about temperature ranges given a set of historical data. Weather predictions on a daily basis are also frequently given as statistical claims, especially the chance of precipitation.
A further note on models would be that even obviously wrong models can still give useful results. A one-dimensional model will tell you what the black body temperature of Earth is. From that you can calculate the "greenhouse effect" of Earth's atmosphere, which makes the difference between a permanently frozen world and abundant life. A simple two-dimensional model can tell you what percentage of this can be attributed to various gases, based on absorption spectra. From there you can start calculating heat transfer due to convection and other effects, working from known physical principles, and mathematically describing the world as we know it in as much detail as possible, and comparing it to observations.
Your rationalizations are ignorant and false. If you're going to drag in a bunch of obviously wrong talking points, you should try a Gish Gallop. If you want to construct a rational argument, you might try arranging your thoughts around a central premise ('climate is unpredictable', e.g.). The best way to argue against a scientific theory, however, is with another scientific theory, but that requires you to learn something more about the subject than just what factoids match your preconceptions. Personally, I'm not really interested in responding to a string of incoherent factoids, so if you are still convinced you have some sort of rational response to make, maybe you can find some other forum.