That's how it works sometimes.

Take a tray of ice, put it in a pot on a burner. The results are predictable, the ice will eventually melt. Computationally modeling the process with fidelity would be considerably more complex.

That's what they (lets call them the adults) are trying to accomplish. Trying to pick their reasoning apart syntacticly is some convoluted multiple of dishonesty and ignorance. As if gaining a rigorous understanding of Earth's climate is all just a word game.

If you're suggesting that more money should be put towards a comprehensive program to map the distribution of ice sheets, their purity, and thermal fluxes then for once we agree.

Think about it. I know you won't (or can't) but try.