And I would add, those who are speaking to an audience not familiar with the evidence. I think this is just human nature. The desire to summarize for those not familiar with the facts.
Again, I'm not a Luddite. I just like to see a healthy dose of humility in scientists that are working with conjecture, albeit logical conjecture. e.g. Black matter only "exists" because the math doesn't work without it (add humility here to the possibility of being wrong). The moon can be observed (less humility required).
I am reasonably sure that we are each speaking from observation of specimens of actual scientists that we have each known personally. At one point I worked in the science office of an actual meteorologist, not the guy on the TV that gets the weather prediction right sometimes, but a physicist with that specialty. He was working on a world climate model and said that lack of data was a big question mark. He didn't complain about lack of computer power even though it was early sixties and computers weren't much by today's machines. I imagine that data is better now, but only data collected in the meantime. The data prior to 1960 is still sparse and always will be unless we can go back in time to plant weather stations everywhere over the past thousands of years. So, the long-term climate model will have to be rough even if data is coming in thick and fast now. That's the way it is, and that's pretty much what he said.