I was responding to zackers.
Carlos,
My response was directed at zackers, not you.
I agree with you that in weather modeling initial conditions are very important because they model short term behavior so there's not enough time for them to clear any bias from initial conditions.
However in climate modeling the runs typically simulate at least 30 years and often much more than that. So there is "time" for the bias of initial conditions to get cleared out of the results. Still, you get a quicker resolution to what you're seeking if the initial conditions are realistic.
I don't disagree with you that if a physical model is incomplete the results may not be accurate but in any physical system there are the things that have a major effect on the system on down to the things that just tweak it around the edges. As long at you get the bigger things right the model is still likely to produce useful results.
You could certainly come up with at physics based model of a coin flip, presumably even one that would work for a biased coin. The analogy I presented just shows that despite the seemingly random results of individual events a system is not necessarily random when you look at many individual results compiled together.
