Funny story, I actually have several years of advanced statistics/modeling experience; well that and a common sense approach fueled by the scientific method. What you need to understand is that a nuclear reactor is a bounded engineering system. You know every material in it, every pipe, every valve, every fuel rod. It can be modeled as a whole system and verified as a whole system.
Climate models are an open, unbounded system. The climate is the opposite kind of system on every axis. It's planetary. The relevant physics spans microscopic cloud droplets up to ocean circulation patterns that take centuries to complete a cycle. The boundaries aren't cleanly defined; does your model include the biosphere? Deep ocean? Solar variability? Volcanism? Land-use feedbacks? You can't build a test Earth. You can't run the experiment twice. Forecasts operate on timescales where by the time you can check a long-range prediction, you've already committed whatever policy decisions were riding on it. And there's no iterating the way there is with reactors, because you only have one instance of the system to compare against, running exactly once.
The reason so many climate models have been wrong is because there is so much guesswork involved. Bias in present from the start with no self-correcting feedback loop you get from a bounded system. So true believers like you have stopped arguing the point, because you are wrong from the start about what kind of predictions are even possible. You try to talk down to your betters but you just end up looking foolish.