Then your response to me is, just, "Yes, I made poor arguments and backed them up with nothing, because that's the kind of opinion I like to express."

And my response to you is: "That's not the type of opinion worth sharing because it is unconvincing to those who don't already agree."

Regarding epidemiology, I think your opinion fails to do justice the diversity of approaches to incorporating modeling and makes grandiose claims that cannot be widely sustained in the face of plausible alternatives. In cases where policy has caused harm, it's mostly been in spite of or without models rather than because of them. If you want to talk details, I already gave you the opening of my argument: the paper about how Victoria used Covid modeling as part of their successful attempt to stop widespread transmission.

Regarding climate change, although I've discussed it multiple times in the past, I'm not sure I have the motivation this time.

Regarding the eleven questions, I don't think they're all good questions. Questions one through five, though not parsed out exactly the way I would, seem fine. Questions six through eleven should really be at most three, and probably just one. So, no, I don't really want to answer those questions because it's too much work. If you collapse them all into a single "Are there biases or conflicts of interest that may result in the model being tuned, intentionally or inadvertently, to produce particular types of systematic errors, and do we have a way to verify whether such systematic bias is present?" I'd go for that. The parts of 6-12 that don't fit in that broad category can be folded into issues of "right question", "risks and consequences" and so on.

And I completely reject the implication that stakeholders need to have the technical expertise to "study the model in depth". If you are in a situation where you can't even tell if the model is broken unless you have all the interested parties scrutinizing it themselves, you've already lost--it means that the model is reflecting interests not an objective reality, and you don't even need a model to do that.