Precisely what we have been trying to point out about your posts from the off.
Are you a psycic then ?
If the factors are known, why would anyone need to be a 'psycic' (sic) ?

It was YOUR assertion that made no sense.

You know all the possible factors ?
I reckon you are no better than 50|50 guess work and it's all a scam selling the idea of fear and disaster to busines.
Your models can't possibly contain all the factors required to be accurate. Even the weather affects and climate change affects business and of course we can't predict accurately what that is going to be doing 
No, that's not what i said.
I said you need to include all factors that are known,There may well be other factors that aren't known so clearly you can't include those.

Sidicks
Then your models are useless since actual risk is dependant on the factors in the real world which is incredibly complex.
Your models are over simplified and a waste of time.
It's all a scam.
Assuming this post is not tongue-in-cheek:
Firstly, Toko Black is dead right: weather forecasting is much more difficult than climate modelling.
But onto the science bit. What do you think "... drawing and publishing conclusions on climate change based on the statistical information gathered" is, if it's not applied science, and pretty sophisticated science at that? Where did you think the basis for drawing the conclusions comes from if not scientific research?
However, that being said, climate modelling is a statistical process at its heart. That doesn't mean it can't be very accurate and rigorous, although in this case there are still quite a few uncertainties. The only thing we can be sure of at present is that man-made CO2 is warming the Earth more than it would otherwise be and that the extra energy is impacting weather patterns whilst the climate undergoes a period of adjustment. We can model reasonably well a stable Earth within a range of a few degrees of temperature; what is difficult is modelling the transitional periods (because they are more weather- than climate-driven, and as we've said, weather is more difficult to model)
 see what you're trying to do...
But:
- In the majority of cases, taking out insurance isn't compulsory - if you reckon it is a scam then don't buy the policy (or set up an insurance company to profit from the scam!)
- The models have been fairly accurate in producing the claims frequency and amounts, so there is strong evidence that the models do what is intended.
Whereas......

Sidicks
Given the complexity and uncertainty combined with a relative lack of computing power, one thing we can be sure of is that at present climate projections can't be 'accurate'.
Seem non-controversial.
Are there other factors that are having a greater impact though?

Sidicks