I get where you're coming from, but your analogy with football was terrible. We can look at where high and low pressure systems are, where the jet stream is, what temperatures are just west of us to see what's coming and how those temperatures have changed in recent days, and you can pretty accurately model what you think is coming. All of this literally has zero to do with a sports game.
What weather forecasters and climate scientists do have in common is they work off models. The long term models they both use are wrong the vast majority of the time. And that's a big issue with climate science. When the topic comes up with my left leaning friends, they just can't figure out how I can agree with them that humans are polluting the planet and affecting the climate, but then disagree on public policy recommendations. I explain its not very different from economics when you think about it either. We both want public policies that help lift people out of poverty, but we completely disagree on what those policies are. I don't think they're dumb for disagreeing with me, and I don't try and force them to agree with me under threat of harassment and violence. That's unfortunately the fascism we've come to know and loathe - if you disagree with them, you're stupid, dangerous, and so on. Their own climate models are typically wrong, and they also cannot guarantee any outcome if we all stopped driving (for example). So they've given me no reason to take their public policy recommendations seriously - especially given the tremendous negative they'd be to everyone's lives and prosperity.
