No, I reject the notion that the climate simulations based on CO2 levels are accurate, since the climate simulations are known to be NP-complete problems (impossible to solve with computers in a reasonable time).
Which ones? There certainly are climate models that aren't.
http://www.climateprediction.net/
http://edgcm.columbia.edu/
http://www2.cesm.ucar.edu/
When you combine the known inability of computers to model the atmosphere
[citation needed]
... with the known alteration of the data (hide the decline) that does not fit a pet theory,
Ah, yes. That time stolen emails were used to run a cynical smear campaign against scientists.
... then it is not hard to come to the conclusion that there is something rotten about the whole "global warming/climate change" propaganda.
Sure, if you're willing to buy into conspiracy theories and junk science.
Either the government can or the government can't.
Other than making it rain under conditions that it normally wouldn't at great expense and in very limited areas, there's not a lot the government could do to impact the weather.
What is known is that the government has been carrying out research into turning climate change into a weapon.
Any of it successful?
So, the first place to look when the climate starts changing is towards those people that are actually trying to change the climate.
People. People are changing the climate, although they aren't trying to.
Part of the problem is that you're conflating weather and climate. Changing the weather intentionally is relatively easy compared to changing the climate. You need to do something that actually lasts a fairly long time, and there are relatively few options for that. One of them, however, is changing atmospheric chemistry on a massive scale, such as by adding a lot of a gas that would normally only be present as a trace.
So, conspiracy theorists have turned a failed project to prevent damaging storms into a sinister weather-weapon project. Project Stormfury
attempted to influence the behavior of hurricanes, mostly with an eye toward preventing damage and destruction. But what they don't mention, because it spoils the narrative, is that the project failed. They spent millions of dollars and never managed to accomplish anything definitive.
Why is it so hard for you to believe that billions of people emitting carbon dioxide that has been trapped in the planet's crust for millions of years might change the environment, but at the same time so easy for you to believe that the government is changing the environment intentionally by secret means, and by an unknown mechanism?