Not OP and not a physicist. I think wrongness is inherent to any well-proven theory, because each theory is a model. It’s just understanding where the theory

Not OP and not a physicist. I think wrongness is inherent to any well-proven theory, because each theory is a model. It’s just understanding where the theory falls apart and where it makes accurate and useful predictions. Like Newtonian physic. Even where it’s accurate, the math can get hard for very simple scenarios. The classic three-body problem can be computed; but it’s also inherently chaotic so any computation quickly becomes inaccurate (sensitive to initial values). I think they compute many different times with different initial conditions, to generate probabilities. I imagine the climate science of “what happens” is also the same: We may not turn into Venus, but we also know all that excess heat and energy has to go somewhere and in our fragile global supply chain it won’t take much to make a disaster. Still, I don’t like the quasi-religious aura that climate journalism has. It’s very off-puttingz