They don&#x27;t have the data to model it the way they predict the course of hurricanes.<p>Models are just models, they&#x27;re only as good as their design and the data they are fed. We have solid temperature data for only a few hundred years, if that. That&#x27;s a lot of time to try to model something with so many variables.<p>Both sides have been found to be tweaking the models and input data to tune the output to their agenda, and nearly every time I see it presented, it&#x27;s &quot;average global temperature rise of x over the last y years has contributed to z inches of sea level rise. We must reduce CO2 because climate change&quot;<p>Average global temperatures have gone up, and down, and up, and down many many times, even before we were even here. If the science were more solid, there wouldn&#x27;t be so much controversy over it.<p>For every model presentation you can find that predicts it, I can find one that doesn&#x27;t.<p>Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Yes. Can it trap heat? Yes. Does that conclude that the extra CO2 we are generating is the cause of global temperature rise? Not by a long shot. Does it warrant further investigation? Absolutely. The consequences of being wrong are far to great to ignore.