I disagree about needing more "humility". The problem is that climate modelling is much more difficult than many of the "solved" physics problems, but due to wh

I disagree about needing more "humility". The problem is that climate modelling is much more difficult than many of the "solved" physics problems, but due to what we already know about the problem of Climate Change, we need the answers as soon as we can get them. The closest historical example that comes to mind, as far as physics goes, is the Manhattan Project, and there we had a clear goal in mind and a timeline that was dictated by wartime necessity. The number of lives affected by Climate Change is comperable, but there's no clear enemy dictating the an agressive timeline. The other issue is that the people with the money to burn, so to speak, are the fossil fuel companies and they have a vested interest in delaying the changes we need as long as possible. So they put that money to use in both the media and political arenas to play up the "debate" as long as they can. This is all exactly like it was with the Tobacco industry which fought for decades to keep the dangers of smoking from being publicized. Only it's not just smokers who get killed by melting ice caps. TL;DR: we know enough about climate change to know that it's happening, it's a big deal, and we have to make major changes to avoid massive damage to our planet. The majority of the noise about how we "don't know enough" about it is coming from the people who have a vested interest in delaying these changes as long as possible.