TheRedneck stated it very well. We just don't KNOW enough to be able to make broad predictions such as when the next Ice Age, or the Next Iceless
Earth Period will be. In order to be able to make a valid prediction, you need several things:
1.) All of the contributing factors contributing to the event you are trying to predict.
2.) A long-term history of data for all of those factors.
3.) The degree to which each factor contributes, and the degree to which the interaction of ALL of those factors relate.
4.) A way to accurately measure the long-term actual performance versus the predictive model you have developed.
5.) The ability to make modifications to that model, if the actual measurements do not correspond to your first-phase model.
NO ONE, I repeat, no one admits to having all of the requirements to item 1 yet. In addition, actual measurements have, at best , only been going on
for about 100 years, give or take a few years. When you a trying to develop a model that predicts on a scale of thousands and tens of thousands of
years, that is hardly enough data.
Finally, much of the data that those who think they know what is going on us, is derived data, that is, data that was not directly measured, but
rather inferred from things such as ice core drillings, fossils, etc. That is, in many cases, highly suspect data, as there often are other
explanations for readings retrieved from such indirect samplings.
Suffice it to say that science, in this field, has just climbed out of the cave, and has a long way to go, before any reliable predictions can be made
with any degree of certainly.
I would suspect their predictions as much as I would suspect the predictions of a carnival lady who stares into a crystal ball, or a blow-hard
politician, who has millions to make on selling carbon credits.