There are, as u/StillLessons points out, simply too many damn variables and interactions.

If an honest effort to completely model the inputs and outputs was being investigated, then I would probably agree with you, and concede this point.

Honest being the subjective term. Some people (extinction rebellion, etc.) are brainwashed and thoroughly convinced that up, is actually down, so...

Unfortunately, the variations in solar inputs have been either A) ignored, or B) fraudulently modeled to reflect the inverse of what actually physically occurs.

Grant funding is functionally non-existent for actual meteorology (in the physics dept), and is lavished upon the fake climate modelers, which isn't reflected in reality.

If the models do not predict observation, then they are worse than useless.
The current climate models are tools of propaganda disinformation.

Something with considering:

If I can easily and conclusively debunk CO2 global warming in a shoot-from-the-hip text forum exchange, then how are these theoretically "honest" climate modelers getting their lunacy through the peer review process?

Where are all of the others who understand the basic nuances of physics?

It can't be just be you, me, a handful of others here, and the kids in my neighborhood. ;-)