Given that the predictions involved are based on long-established, result-yielding large scale astrophysics modelling programs, that's a bit too dismissive. Yes, in the strict sense "scientists" "used computer modelling" and found "a modelling parameterisation" that "seemingly correctly predicts" a formerly poorly understood part of black hole accretion disk structure.
At the same time researchers at Caltech used a combination of well-established models that revealed how electromagnetism, previously not considered, explains observed accretion disk structure.
In the science sense, this is absolutely a "reveal": the combination of models yields data that is consistent with observed reality.
I don't think its dismissive, its just the more accurate word, this entire field is about letting beliefs die whenever anything counters the model no matter how many things were built on top of the model. let the faithful die with their beliefs, this crowd lets their beliefs die.
Both common in industrial design for simulating the performance of a part-to-be.
Is your skepticism directed at all climate models or just the cutting-edge planet-scale politicized ones? I find our weekly forecasts quite useful, for example.
Weather models are definitely eyebrow raising. On days where there 0% chances of rain as the forecast, I receive .25". On days where it is >80% chance of rain, 0.0" of rain falls. Then there are days where it tells me with the accuracy of minutes of when the rain will start/stop. When their accurate, it's amazing. When they're not, it's very frustrating.
