By "'in mice' equivalent", do you mean "a useful way to make statements about things that can't be directly measured"?

Assuming you don't mean that, that's not a gotcha. Practically all of science is "in a model". We can't observe an alternative universe where DNA doesn't mutate, but that doesn't disprove evolution.

I'm not saying we shouldn't observe and try to learn more with an open, curious, and inquisitive mind.

I'm saying we shouldn't be making definitive high-confidence assertions along the lines of "there's mathematical proof that anthropogenic climate change is the factor that causes X more deaths in Y storm".

Because this isn't a matter of 2+2=4. There are more variables at play here than the combination of our intelligence and our technology allows us to accurately model.

If what we brought to the table was good enough, we could consistently and accurately predict the weather a week out.

Also, I want to be completely clear that my counterpoints here are not a refutation that human activity is a contributing factor to climate change (it absolutely is a factor), or that climate change isn't happening (the climate is absolutely changing). I'm simply suggesting is that there are more factors besides human activity that are also contributing factors. We also don't know what all of these factors are yet, and I'm not aware of any techniques that allow you to isolate the impact of any individual factor in a complex system without knowing even how many other factors there are to control for, let alone what the values of those unknown factors are.