What does Climate Model output look like?

A good friend of mine is working on his masters in GIS right now.

I was talking to him about climate models the other day (he works with climatologists) and he said something along the lines of "fucking climatologists, dude. Tell me what the temperature is going to be tomorrow, or in a week, THEN we'll work on what it is going to be is 40 years".

I'm not saying that he is right or wrong, but I do really feel (feelings != science, I know) that if they (the climatologists) could give us some more accurate predictions of what they weather is going to be next month, I would have less trouble listening to them when they try to tell me what it is going to be in 30 years.

Did I just get told to look at the pretty pictures? And then boggle at the idea that they might be meaningless?

This site calls itself "scienceblogs.com"?

I'll admit to generally being a skeptic on the topic of global warming... but there are far better arguments for the standard model than "look at the pretty pictures"! I'll do the advocates of the standard model of warming the favor of pretending this was never posted.

The lack of evidence supporting Global Climate Conspiracy merely confirms the vast extent and incredible sophistication of the conspiracy.

You'll never convince anyone that catastrophic climate change is likely, as too many people have their self-image and their perceived financial stability tied up in believing that it will not occur.

What does Climate Model output look like? It looks like the same stuff that phd assembled equity market models spit out. A bunch of fancy math with no useful track record of success. When are these people going to have their LTCM public depantsing moment?