Here's what's fun about logic. I can assert something and you can disagree, but logically I am not wrong until you prove me wrong, until then either the assertion or it's logical negation may be true. I think you tried to disprove some of my assertions, but your attempts were not logically valid.
So I continue to stand by statements "We are too dumb to understand climate", and "Any one who calls themselves a climate expert is a huge liar, unless they put it in the context of being relative to the rest of mankind.", (yes, I did notice you taking it out of full context) "That lack of relativity has lead to arrogance and away from science.", and "skeptics and supporters are opposite sides of the same coin of wrong headedness.". But I'll address them to give them some more perspective to maybe help you see what I am talking about or give you some more meat to use to argue against.
Now let me address that last one first since that's the one you seemed to want to actually try to tear down the most. And in point went to talk about the differences between skeptics and climate scientists. And those differences are irrelevant. Because I was talking about skeptics and supporters. You'd hope that skeptics would be different then people that supporters are supporting because then why would they be on opposite sides. But In my experience "arguments" between supporters and skeptics become a back and forth of logically meaningless nonsense.
As to us being too dumb to understand climate. I don't mean that mankind is collectively too dumb to ever figure it out. I suspect that we can and hope that we will. But today we are standing on the backs of thousands of years of people who came before us, and we seemed to be gaining knowledge perhaps faster then ever and since the advent of the computer we've been tackling problems that were far beyond our capabilities before. But we've got good climate data for like 40 years, much less thorough (and more likely to be error prone) data for a few hundred before that, and then the data starts to get really iffy. And also to be clear when I talking about understanding I'm talking about absolute understanding. Things like gravity are hard and it was a long way from before galileo to F = G(m1)(m2)/r^2, but I wouldn't call that understanding gravity. We are learning about climate daily and I frequently hear about new factors that are being considered to improve models, which certainly implies that we didn't understand it yet, and if our models are still being improved at the 10s of years scale, it's hard to imagine that we are close to a final perfect model. And all of this holds for my comment about experts. Sir Issac Newton was the man, and so many people are standing on his shoulders (arguments about parallel discovery aside), but Physics undergraduates today probably have to know more about physics then he did and an undergraduate degree and an undergraduate degree is generally not considered an expert degree. So while he was pioneer, absolutely speaking he wasn't an expert. That's why I added that bit that you truncated off. Relatively to the totality of many subjects we have no experts today, relative the mankind's understanding of given topics there are often experts
And as for the comment about being lead to arrogance and away form science. Maybe it is just the particular manner of the climate scientists that I hear speak relative to that of the other scientists, but climate scientists seem to me to speak with far more certainty then their peers from other fields. Especially other new fields. And again relative to their peers they don't seem to talk much about the difficulties of their field. They are studying the one earth we have that so far has never completely repeated itself making it really hard to get good control data and experiment and all that other stuff that becomes. I've heard scientists working in green land when talking about the sites and the dangers of working on the ice talk about how incredibly dynamic it is and how what's on the bottom one day might be on the top the next, and then go on to explain that ice cores work because of the predictability of the ordering of the layering. with out rectifying the two statements. And that contradiction was independently keyed upon and commented upon by multiple logically minded people I know unconnected to each other. That sort of thing looks a lot like a dogmatic blind spot. And as I continued, I don't think that our system of academia is particularly suited to that sort of field, and I think that it harms the quality of the product and we could probably be learning more faster. But logically that is the most subjective of the sentences and it really depends on what exact definition of science is used.