No real scientist would ever write what you just did. Is this like Einstein's cosmological constant, expansion of the universe, or any number of other supposed knowns that have been proven wrong.
Assert confidently that real science knows that it is impossible to model anything accurately, and that climate change concerns are guesses that will magically be proven wrong at a later date. Also, pretend that science is about 100% certainty (which it is not) and then judge climate change theories based on that figure.
There is scientific consensus (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-co...) that humans are causing global warming, and this is based on climate models developed and refined over decades, from a variety of scientific disciplines.
Yet in the face of this reality people like yourself have no qualms dismissing the science based on their own notions of science and are entirely able to convince themselves that they hold a scientific position.
I think the process is as follows:
1. Construct your own notion of how science works.
2. Dismiss climate science based on 1.
3. Convince yourself you hold a scientific position.
1. Dismiss climate science because you don't like its conclusions
2. Construct a notion of how science works that lets you do 1
3. Convince yourself you hold a scientific position
No it isn't.
A recent study showed that cosmic rays can, in some circumstances trigger liquid drop formation. However, it did not show that this happened often enough for clouds to be formed, let alone often enough for it to have any effect on the climate.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cern-cosmic-rays-basic.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/GCR-Backing-the-wrong-horse....