Apart from that, any simulation is only as good as the data put in, the algorithms that work upon it and the final interpretation of the results - simulating complex systems such as software is almost impossible, climate on the other hand is many magnitudes more complex again. And without the original data nor access to the simulations and their parameters I get awfully worried about the quality of the results and whether those results actually mean anything at all.
But then there's the very troubling question of why was the original data lost? Ok, it could really be because it was old and not considered worthy of keeping. In which case why does this old, presumably reconstructed (how?!) get used in making predictions?
These emails are deeply troublsome
Finally, if this is interpreted as being against the "proof" of Global Warming, sorry, climate change, then in all of these matters (and one of the fundamental tenets of science) is to be skeptical. If the proof and data stand up to a detailed review and all the questions a skeptic can ask then the data and proof will be accepted, if not....?