"...astro-physicists can predict with minutes when Halley's comet will next appear above Market Harborough. There is no meteorologist who can predict with any certainty Market Harborough will be wet or dry in two months time."
The problem with this analogy, aside from the fact that the first bit is wrong, is that we're not talking about weather but *climate*, which is to say, long-term trends. In general, the longer a period over which you observe the system, the less relevant are the minor (chaotic) fluctuations, as they tend to average out.
Granted, no climate model can be perfect either, but it's actually easier to predict the climate on Earth in a century or so than it is to predict the weather in London next month.
All of this thread, though, is filled with what could best be described as a kind of rampant anti-intellectualism. Why listen to people who've studied this, or related systems, their entire careers? They're obviously biased, whereas the man in the street who first discovered the distinction between climate and weather an hour ago has a mind unhampered by facts, data, and intensive study...