Michael R. Smith writes on the failures of modern forecasting tools:
Given the inadequate performance of these models over the last 5 to 10 years, why do we believe we can make accurate, highly specific forecasts 50 to 100 years in the future? Is it because we are so close to the problem we are blinded to the dangers like the economists who did not see the meltdown coming? Almost no one familiar with meteorology or climate models would disagree that they are more complex than the mortgage valuation or influenza prediction models [which have recently failed to yield correct predictions]. The basic processes of the earth-ocean-atmosphere are incompletely understood and we barely understand many of their interactions. We also know that forecasting the weather beyond five days is dicey at best. Then why are we making 29,000-day weather forecasts?While this essay is certainly not debunking the science behind climate change theory, it points out that the climate is a very complex system that can be highly unpredictable. There is a difference between forecasting climate changes -- such as trends in temperature over centuries based on past evidence of the chemical constituents of the climate -- and forecasting weather changes -- such as the frequency of heatwaves, hurricanes, and rainfall.
However, since the Global Warming Movement began, media outlets have been reporting on scientific studies that not only make weather predictions for far in the future, but also connect current weather events to "global warming," essentially falling prey to the availability heuristic and confirmation bias. Such reporting, when presented as "scientific truth" rather than as hypothesis, is irresponsible.