If you have a spare supercomputer I'm sure the scientists would be happy to help you run their stuff. The IPCC report cites its sources, you can go and check who the authors are and what the models take into account.

I found some links for source code here: https://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2009/06/getting-the-source-... https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/#GCM_code

As far as I know, the code is secret and the data that it runs on is secret, i.e., it is not science, and it is not really even attempting to appear to be science to anyone who knows what science is. Not reproducible even in theory due to secrecy means it cannot be science. It's not even wrong.

Besides being secret and likely buggy, any simulation of the climate necessarily incomplete, i.e. it omits quite a lot of phenomena. Complex systems are fundamentally non-amenable to simulation, but in this case, the results of the "simulation" are garbage squared, because they're "simulations" of some system that doesn't even exist.

This is the kind of stuff being passed off as science these days.

Source?