Your complaint that these so-called (and unspecified) "warmists" use the less-than-formal term "settled" is a rather irrelevant bit centered around semantics. Again, yes, science is eternally subject to possible revision. But there is just about as much confidence in the core of AGW theory (an anthropogenically-enhanced "greenhouse" effect) as can possibly be had in science. Whether you call that "virtually certain" or "settled" doesn't really make a great deal of difference in that respect. It's quite real. The only failure in using the term "settled" is that it implies "over and done", and nothing in science is that.

You appear to be conflating "predicting the future" (modeling?) and AGW theory. The robustness of AGW theory rests on the traditional sciences and tens of decades of empirical evidence, not computer modeling. The reality is that the theory is quite certain, having withstood the challenge of countless scientists for well over 100 years. That's not PC, that's QED.