No, but... which is harder, to model the economy, or to model the climate? Which do we have more people trying to model, more money being poured into attempts to model?
> This is a rhetorical trick I find a little irritating.
It's not a proof of non-existence. I'm not sure it's supposed to be. It is a reasonable grounds for asking whether we're as sure as we think we are.
Scott Adams, a cartoonist, has given me no reason to trust his capability to review scientific literature or assess scientific models.
That's not to say that a cartoonist could never meaningfully contribute to a discussion on scientific literature or models, but with a background as a cartoonist, the bar for me to trust him on this is a lot higher than, say, climate researchers. "I've never seen..." is insufficient from him. There's probably a lot of stuff he's never seen since he's focused his career on drawing comics.
"When it comes to the complex climate models, I’ve never seen a complex, iterative model – of the type that includes human assumptions and human measurements – reliably predict the future multiple years out."
Since he has never seen such a thing, are we all to nod our heads and agree they don't/can't exist? This is a rhetorical trick I find a little irritating.