// Agreed, but it does not conclusively support the cause of it. The algorithms used to produce future predictions are very flawed. //
I don't think the fact part of this is right -- it's almost certain that human activity is driving the present period of Climate Change, and the only bit missing is the inevitable lack of absolute certainty, which is after all completely impossible in practical science.
As to the second part, I have no doubt that climate models still require continuous improvement, but I think there are at least two points you're missing: "needs improvement" is not remotely the same thing as "(fundamentally) flawed" (I've added the "fundamentally" but I don't think it is far from the claim you're making, apologies if I've overstated your position ymb); and, in practice, there isn't a single topic of research in current science that doesn't have some gap in understanding. The only reason that the gaps in Climate Science receive so much attention is because it's to certain groups' benefits to exaggerate them in order to justify ignoring it. But if, to take a random example, it mattered politically what to do in response to the latest models of Particle Physics, then you can guarantee that there'd be some pressure group stressing the muon g-2 and P5' anomalies* as somehow crippling for the entire theory.
*Ask in a separate thread.