Thanks for your interest. I looked over that article, it added nothing knew and was quite lame in my view. We’ve already covered the points in our original article here at Medium. I believe the authors were merely wanting to re-emphasise that they are conspiracy theorists who don’t “believe” in science. They’d rather “believe” that climate science is a giant, world-wide, decades-long hoax that the guvmints of every nation have hatched in order to give up control of their countries and make the world communist and take everyone’s money — or something like that.

The condition you set for yourself as to whether or not you “believe” in climate science is quite odd, particularly for someone who claims a science degree. Your viewing climate science as having “sides” is also very peculiar for someone who claims to have some science in their educational past. With “sides” do you mean denier/conspiracy theorists vs scientists? Or perhaps denier/conspiracy theorists vs the world?

Nevertheless, since you have expressed an interest in climate models, there are a few references to get you started if you click on the link below (see the references at the bottom of the article). You didn’t say what sort of climate models interest you. The links below are mostly to articles about how scientists use coupled models, which are very sophisticated and are used to give scientists further insights into particular aspects of climate, as well as determine what is likely to happen under various conditions in the future. For example, under different levels of CO2.

If you are interested in learning about climate science, the IPCC has prepared some excellent reports, referencing thousands of papers. I recommend the latest report on the science, the AR5 Working Group 1 report for an introduction. They are quite technical in part, but should not pose difficulties that someone with your background can’t overcome with some additional learning: