Why can't introduction to logic be mandatory education in our world already?
It's pretty simple really. If models have no predictive ability, and you can't/won't describe another mechanism which HAS predictive ability, then your assertion that the rate of change in the climate will be "less" than the rate predicted by the models has no basis in fact.
If we have the choice between preparing for catastrophe or not, and the possibility of catastrophe is unknown it is NOT proven that action must be taken.
Nobody owes you a burden of proof.
For example, I can posit that there is an unknown possibility of a catastrophic earth impact from some massive rock out in space. That is an accurate enough statement, but it is not proof that we must immediately start a multi-billion dollar program to combat the threat of our extinction.
We know the likelihood of asteroid impacts to a reasonable degree of certainty. How? Using science. In fact, we use models.
Climate change is in fact a bit different still, because contrary to what alarmists want to believe, the science is pretty clear that catastrophe is NOT coming down on our heads anywhere within the next 100 years.
So you tell us that the science is uncertain, but you yourself are certain of the likelihood of catastrophe. How did you reach that conclusion? did you point bones? chicken entrails?
Is there any plausible reason for us to accept your witchcraft?