Nope.

(Sorry. I take it you would like them to be complete garbage.)

There are two main ways in which a model can give bad results.

1. It can be a fundamentally bad model. E.g., Kelvin had a perfectly reasonable model of the long-term evolution of the temperature of the earth from which he deduced that it couldn't be more than a few hundred million years old, probably less. The problem was that he didn't know about radioactivity, which turns out to make a tremendous difference.

2. It can be a reasonable model but the parameters can be hard to estimate accurately, and this can lead to inaccurate predictions. In some cases, small errors in the parameters lead to large errors in the predictions. For instance, if you try to forecast the weather a year ahead then you will get all the details wrong.

This article is about the second kind of problem, and that's the one that shows the most dramatic degradation as you look at longer and longer intervals.

Different properties of the model output can show very different sensitivities to the inputs. For instance, suppose you make a model of the solar system and try to predict where the planets will be ten million years from now. I expect (though I haven't actually done the relevant calculations) you will find that tiny errors in your measurements of the planets' present positions and momenta will lead to very large errors in estimating how far around their orbits the planets are, and probably also in estimating the precession of the orbits. But I bet that almost every simulation run will put the planets' distances from the sun at about the same values, which will be about the same as they are now, and I would bet very heavily that those distances will be a pretty good match for reality. (Barring utterly out-of-model events like the human race getting technologically advanced enough to move planets around and finding it useful to do so.)

Or suppose you make a model of the weather and try to predict things five years from now. The model will do very poorly at predicting which days will be rainy in (say) New York, and if you run it many times with tiny changes in its parameters it will give completely different predictions. But it will very consistently tell you that in New York it'll be warmer in July than in January, and it will almost certainly be right; it will do pretty well at predicting rainfall in the Sahara Desert, and it will almost certainly be right about that. Some things behave chaotically, some things not so much.

So, what about those climate models? Weather is chaotic: small variations quickly lead to huge changes. Climate is much less so: to whatever extent the models are fundamentally accurate, small changes to the parameters tend to produce small changes to outputs like global mean temperature ten years later.

How fundamentally accurate are they? They seem to be pretty decent; when you go back and look at the predictions of old models for what are now past years, they do quite well. (To predict the climate you need to predict human behaviour, because human behaviour affects the climate. Some of the predictions of human behaviour that went into the models were wrong. So you can get a sort of halfway house by running an old model but using now-historical information about things like how much CO2 we would put into the atmosphere. Unsurprisingly, this improves their performance relative to just using the old models as they stand.) See e.g. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019... for some analysis.

So: no, the sort of effects described in the article don't mean that climate models are complete garbage. The other sort of problem (fundamental errors in the model itself as opposed to its parameters) could make them garbage, but the evidence available so far suggests that even decades-old models were pretty good in this respect.