Haha perhaps, but I don’t think so. There’s no fundamental reason our climate models can’t have resolution that allows us to see major natural processes. If we

Haha perhaps, but I don’t think so. There’s no fundamental reason our climate models can’t have resolution that allows us to see major natural processes. If we can’t confidently predict weather 3 days out at decent resolution, why are we so confident in forecasts of 50 years with a coarse resolution? And if our models don’t contain important forcing such as sulphite aerosols and volcanic activity, how can be so certain of attribution to GHG? I know people usually start talking about the precautionary principle at this point, but I think a big part of that is being skeptical of the models unless their predictions closely match observation.