People that study climate for a living overwhelmingly say this is a problem.
If I've got a large number of mechanics that say my car needs a new alternator, then I'd buy one. If I have a large number of surgeons that say I need surgery, then I would do it. That's not to say that you don't shop around, but at some point you make a rational decision based on evidence and testimony.
You're never going to have a climate model that is 100% accurate, but that goes for a model of pretty much anything. If you could measure every single variable empirically and produce absolute causal relationships, then why would you need a model?
If you live in a fault zone, a seismologist might tell you that your house stands a 1-in-50 chance of being destroyed by an earthquake in your lifetime (probably based on a model). And you decide whether to buy earthquake insurance. But, an overwhelming majority of climate scientists tell us that we are at an extemely high chance of some pretty bad consequences from climate effects induced by our actions, during our lifetime, and we do nothing. Actually, insurance firms are starting to take quick notice because they understand this principal.
I just want to make this clear:
The majorities of climate scientists do say there are climate changes but at the same time does not contribute this to human influences.
It is mainly just the corrupt minority of scientists that are trying to make a buck which claim it is human created weather changes.
What we have in reality is mechanics telling us we need surgery.
But, an overwhelming majority of climate scientists tell us that we are at an extemely high chance of some pretty bad consequences from climate effects induced by our actions, during our lifetime, and we do nothing.
Not true.