How would you propose testing or verifying a non-falsifiable model? Each sample of future data we have tends to show our models to be simply broken except in the most broad sense of a longterm gradual increase in temperatures. For instance from 2001 and 2010 the warming slowed to 0.11C per decade. [1] For the 17 years before then was 0.17C. There was not a single model that predicted this and, in spite of a number of after the fact hypotheses for that apparent decline, there is still no decisive answer. Does this not kind of bother you?

We might argue that well since they're getting the overall picture right, that they must be fundamentally correct, even if they don't perform so well on the micro scale. But I'm not sure this is a reasonable argument. In particular, the past 400k years of Earth [2] show a very regular waxing and waning of temperatures, with the scale increasing upwards of 10C from the frequently extremely rapid transition from the mins to the maxes. Not only is about now when you would expect to be entering a warming era, but we've yet to even hit the highs of temperatures the planet reached in relatively recent geologic history, though before humans even existed. This is no way suggesting that humans are not contributing to the current phase of climate change, yet at the same time is it really particularly insightful to propose that temperatures will continue to do as they've done for hundreds of thousands of years?

As usual I'm sure people will just downvote this, but I genuinely have no clue why. It's as if its taboo to ask, what I think, are completely reasonable questions. At the same time it's completely kosher to freak out and suggest climate change could imminently end the very species of humankind, which is not a remotely realistic outcome even in the most catastrophic and near 0 probability level outcomes.

[1] - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/did-global-warmin...

[2] - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Ice_Age_...