Garbage in, garbage out. If you feed a computer false data, you will get false results.
Some of the “experts” like to quote science, but they have applied the real scientific principles very selectively, avoiding or simply ignoring a vast body of known interrelations in nature, that over time have held up to scrutiny.
Not that any theory or postulate is ever immune to further scientific inquiry, and may in fact be set upon its head by new data collected, but the data collection so far in “climate change” has been highly weighted in favor of one outcome, with the total denial of other equally or even much more important data.
Nobody, it seems, wants to study the very real effects of water vapor on the climate, and yet, it is vastly more important than the minuscule amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which in fact is plant food, not a pollutant. As a further programming note, carbon dioxide simply does not have the characteristics necessary to be any kind of agent for heat retention in the atmosphere.
While that is true, it doesn't matter if they actually have "good" data to feed in. The models are ridiculously simple. The weather systems of the earth are extraordinarily complex interrelated systems with feedback mechanisms. We simply do not know or understand all of the variables that affect the system. We also have zero control over the biggest variables in the equations, i.e., the huge ball of atomic fire that rises every day and is the primary driver of all weather on this, and every other planet in the solar system. We also can do little to nothing about water vapor, which is a much larger contributor as a "greenhouse gas" than is CO2