I don’t disagree with your conclusion, but would like to point out that the particular argument you cite here isn’t all that good.
There are a great many areas of science in which small-scale predictions cannot be made with assurance, but long-term large scale predictions can.
A classic example is gambling. Whether a given pull of the handle on the one-armed bandit will produce a jackpot cannot be accurately predicted. But the more pulls are made and the larger the number of bandits, the closer the results will get to those predicted by the set odds.
Economics is another example. It is essentially impossible to make accurate predictions about an individual person’s financial prospects. It is much more possible to predict the movement of an entire economy.
IOW, in science large-scale predictions are very often more accurate than small-scale ones.
Whether this principle applies specifically to weather and climate change predictions is something I’m not addressing.
Not sure about that...
Gambling in it's many forms is strictly a numbers game...so many combinations and so many chances to win...at some point you will win...you will be broke, but you won!!!
Climate change is much more complex and so many unknowns you can't figure into your prediction.
I think it's apples and oranges...JMHO