That's why researchers should always report uncertainty bounds. On that note, I don't think I've ever heard a researcher give a definitive answer as to what climate change _will_ do. We can very precisely measure the change in ocean surface temperature and acidity and come up with reasonable guesses for the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere every year, but the future always involves additional uncertainty.
This simply isn’t true. Climate science has an incredibly long history of failed predictions, with the less specific predictions being obviously more resilient to falsification. If you care about the existence of climate change deniers, then you should know who Competitive Enterprise Institute are, most writing on climate change denial can be traced back to their publications. The reason being that they have an essentially limitless supply of alarmist predictions that have been falsified.
Just look at all the other child comments, most of them immediately jumped to the defence of supposedly irrefutable climate models. The reason climate deniers have so much support is that climate scientists, their communicators and their advocates have little credibility outside the true believers. If you don’t want to take my word on it, here’s a Stanford study on this exact topic:
