why can't they run their model to see how it matches up against the last 1000 years? If the model does a good job of matching what actually happened over the past 1000 years, then it can be better trusted to show what could happen in the next 1000 years. If it's predictions are way off, then the model is flawed and the programmers need to go back to the drawing board. Put it this way, would you trust an airliner design that wasn't put through stress testing to see if the computer predictions were accurate? I sure wouldn't and neither does the FAA. That's why companies like Boeing build test articles and test them to destruction before the plane is certified for use. Validation is expensive and time consuming but there is no substitute for it.

Relying on "common sense" isn't a valid scientific process. Many things in science, such as quantum mechanics, aren't based on common sense. Even Einstein got that wrong when he said, "God doesn't play dice with the universe" in response to quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle.

Science is a rigorous process. Those who wish to shortcut the process are little different than the whack jobs that see faces on Mars and giant glass shards on the moon. I used to have respect for you but that has faded rapidly over this issue. You're the one who seems to want to shortcut the scientific process to achieve your political objectives.