Lots of people have a pretty good idea about what will happen to the Earth's future climate. Positive feedbacks such as methane and CO2 release and ice/albedo changes can be modeled relatively easily, as well as current and projected changes in temperature. Meteorology is not climatology, and the mere fact that you confuse weather and climate shows that you have little background knowledge on the subject. If you think projecting the temperature for next Monday and projecting the Earth's temperature for a year use similar methods or have similar chances of accuracy, it only underscores your ignorance on this subject.
Look at how many times you are forced to be non-specific about your contentions: "Lots of people" - What does that mean? Majority belief equals truth?
Positive feedbacks can be "modelled" "relatively" easily. First of all a model is NOT reality. It is a human construct that can be useful in certain instances, but cannot possibly integrate even a fraction of the dependent variables in reality. What does "relatively" easily mean?
Oh and my favorite - the meterology is not climatology pronouncement. Often used to disconnect the fact that meterology is indeed imprecise and error-prone given our present levels of sophistication in constructing models. So since we need to make climatology ACCURATE so we can use it politically, it is important to divorce it from it's evil twin brother meterology, which cannot predict where Igor will be in 6 days. Sorry my friend, meterology and climatology are separated by the vector of time. They are and will forever be 2 ends of the same book.
And by the way, core samples and radioactive dating and other similar techniques are fabulous inventions, however they do not measure reality. They are approximations, they are subject to interpretation, they are inherently inexact. They suggest conclusions but they do not PROVE them. They are a form of retroactive modelling and suffer from the cardinal Achilles heel of all modelling - incomplete data that needs interpretation by a human. Not to say that we should not model, we should. But modelling is NOT reality.
Most of the rest of your post is elitist gobbledygook and name calling, I won't respond.
However, ALL SCIENTISTS DO NOT AGREE ON GLOBAL WARMING. There is wide dissension and a complete disconnect between reality and poltics. The left leaning envirofascists are very loud and very public. The left leaning media is of course simpatico and provides the forum for dissemination of the propaganda. Opinions to the contrary are simply silenced because it does not advance the collectivist-statist agenda.
However here are useful links for those who want to learn that the issue is completely and utterly undecided:
https://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htmBy the way there are hundreds of links, but this one is relatively concise and easy to understand for those without extensive background in the Earth Sciences. Google "global warming myth" or "global warming truth" or any such verbiage and you will be immersed in sufficient educational links to help you decide the truth of the matter.
And the truth of the matter is this: global warming is a theory, NOT reality. Nobody knows for sure whether 1) temperatures are warming significantly or 2) even if they are, what is causing it or 3) even if they are whether there is anything that can or should be done about it.
And finally it is important to read the proponents of global warming and note the unbelievably frequent use of the terms "IF", "CAN", "COULD", "MAY", etc. It's all speculation and even they can't hide it because they are not sure of their own position, only their politics.
Example:
IF trends continue as the data
SUGGESTS, the Earth
COULD INDEED be headed for the
POSSIBILITY of uncontrolled warming that
COULD cause food shortages, extinctions, and
POSSIBLY the end of life as we know it.
See how it works? It sounds like the end of the world but it's only a completely meaningless pronouncement. Listen people. Learn. Read. Understand. We are being gamed by these nut jobs, and it is your pocketbook they seek to raid because they are not able to resort to simple taxation anymore to "redistribute" wealth and accomplish their real goal: the destruction of freedom.