I used to have long discussions with some folks at work about climate change, and it aroused my curiosity to a significant "degree" (sic). I had both Nature and Science coming across my desk each week, so I started trying to read the articles in them about climate. My problem was that they used so much jargon like "the 3STO4g model" that they were hard to follow. Most were about a modification of some third order term in a climate model based on another analysis of past climates. Some tried to calculate the impact of say permafrost melting, I recall that one fairly clearly (in concept). It was pretty scary. Many dealt which changes in our albedo, both melting ice and increased cloud cover. Suffice it to say none of them outright said "Climate change is real and here is the evidence.". That was not their purpose obviously.
My impression, duh, is that we humans have a lot of hubris thinking we can model climate change. The only data we have with which to construct a model is what has happened up to now, and it is surprisingly difficult to get reliable data on simple things like global temperature over time. There were differing models for THIS folks used. How can you devise a model if history is unclear? What might happen in the future is speculative. And the 5 or 6 or 7 main models of course differ to some "degree" in their projections, which is not a shock either.
That climate is changing and it may be in large part due to man's actions is not something I argue against. I think it likely, I don't know how much. I also know with high certainty that China and India are NOT going to do much to reduce their CO2 output, nor is the US and Europe for that matter. It's window dressing.
The US and Europe MIGHT meet the Paris targets by 2030, but that clearly is not going to matter if the models are roughly correct. And China and India, well, they make whatever we do irrelevant.