It is naive of humans to believe we can accurately model something we cannot measure against. Until a time machine enables someone to vastly scale back climate data, we have a huge missing gap and continually rely on the short term models for association, whereby those models are a collaboration of data collected over roughly 400 years. The last 250 are better statistically and the last 50 are exceptionally accurate.

But to levy them upon data extrapolated without correlation is where science falls short. You can surmise the corroboration between soil, ice, and methane samples as well as biological data from the eons; but piecing together a picture is more akin to believing the extremely faint stars you see in the night sky - are still there.

We tend to believe what is in front of us not realizing that change is happening all around us, every moment, every microsecond. Nothing ever stays the same. This is true of climate change as it is humans.

The debate on what to do about change and how much humans have potentially and/or are contributing is an entirely different discussion. With technology perhaps we'll coalesce. It is otherwise far more likely that the planet and the cosmos could make it so we can't.