The second is like you who respond to any argument or data with comments that equate to systems of non-linear differential equations are chaotic and weather/climate is complex and we don't know enough to say anything.
I will just point out, perhaps tangentially, that this is probably the singular sticking point in the current academic climate. There was a trend back at the 'turn of the century' to hypothesize that science was coming to an end; that all the major discoveries were behind us and that there was little more to do in new work. Naturally we can look back at this with a smile and a wink, knowing they
they were just silly gooses, obviously ignorant in their pre-relativity and pre-internet little world. However this trend is, in a way, back in style in some quarters, in one case in the social values area of study where the "we know everything, dead people knew nothing" is coming on strong again, and in another case where some experts are decidedly sure that we are finally advanced enough to knowing anything we set ourselves to. But the fact is that many areas of inquiry are really beyond us, or at minimum so far in their infancy that they're the equivalent of naked eye astronomy done in the middle ages.
You will not find scientists, and especially not social scientists, ever willing to offer a statement such as "sorry but we've got to say that this is just not going to be understandable right now." That doesn't exactly look good on a grant application, and certainly isn't going to make your university increase your funding. Rather, you will get all kinds of improper claims of certainty about anything under the sun. I'm more familiar with stupid economic theories in the 20th century than I am with some other areas like climate science, but if you're aware enough of just how dunderheaded some of these 'experts' are, or how fake their claims are to prove they are earning their paychecks, then you should really not be surprised at any backlash against overstating claims of knowledge.
Now as I said this point is tangential because I'm not really weighing in the validity of the present points being made. But I am saying that the objection of "this stuff is too complex for the current claims to be believed" really is a valid position to take in various fields right now. And this is doubly so anything there is a climate of "everyone knowing" something when it's hard to believe anyone knows it. Maybe the climate scientists really are right. But I don't agree with classifying the "it's too complicated" defense as being a merely kneejerk position. That said, it is equally likely that plenty of kneejerk people will hide behind a reasonable sounding objection even though they would have objected no matter what. So there's that.