Statistics and computer models are not science
? And what you say is? on what basis? What do you suppose science is? The collected thoughts of Wuzel Gummage?
They are testable, have been tested, and have past the tests within known limits (which are not exactly close tolerance, I agree), and the results are published, and are available for inspection, are inspected, etc. You clearly lack the skill to do this yourself. However, that does not mean that other people are not sufficiently skilled in the art.
Why is this hard for people to understand?
Because unlike you, loads of people have travelled around the world to a wide variety of places, and report back that the experiences of the people living there confirms the data reported by satellite measurements, etc, and those involved in activities like fishing and farming, which are seriously affected by the climate report that their own experience is one of change over several generations.
The models may not be correct to two decimal places - but the sign points in the right direction for sure.
While I accept that GW is being used as a tool for corrupt political funding, that is because the corrupt know which side of the bread has the butter on and if it was global cooling, they would be seeking taxes to fund heating projects instead.
Were you born yesterday, or do you just want us to think that?