My argument to this would be that changing our world because of a faulty model system would be disastrous. Because of the advancements of the last two centuries more people have had food and water and basic necessities being met then at any time in history (and yet we still have billions suffering). Worsening their lives over something that might not happen is not a good way to run the world. The models being accurate is important so that if we do implement policy that end up worsening people’s lives we have proof that it is worth it.
The models being accurate is important so that if we do implement policy that end up worsening people’s lives we have proof that it is worth it.
The models differ in the scale of how bad it's going to be, not on whether it's going to be bad. Your stance is kind of like saying "Well doc, you're telling me I have sepsis, but you can't tell me how bad that's going to be so I'm refusing treatment until you can improve your models."
The current consensus on the impact of climate is NOT "something that might not happen".
Climate change is happening right now, with effects that are observable as trends across the globe. Even the most optimistic model is predicting widespread catastrophe.