Sounds like another scam. No climate model can ever predict more than a few days into the future. Will there be more tornadoes and hurricanes in the future? Of course there will and they will be in the same places they have been before. Given the increase in population and construction in vulnerable areas, the damage and loss of life will increase. Global warming is the least of our worries. Overpopulation, ethnic violence, wars and the resulting disease and famine are a far greater threat. Still, the global warming scammers will try to profit from it all instead of doing much worthwhile.

Bob: "No climate model can ever predict more than a few days into the future."
"Bob" doesn't seem to know what a climate model is.

Rather than worry about the climate heating up we better be concerned about the climate getting colder. The sun is going through a Maunder like minimum which may have ushered in the Little Ice Age. Cold weather kills a lot more folks than hot weather.

Worryingly my country isn't even on the map. Is that good or bad?

This dude must have his heart broken every time he clicks to view the comments and sees they are filled with denial. Nothing quit like working your butt off collecting mountains of data just to have the population say "naw". Maybe climate scientists should take a break from all the data-crunching, research, and analysis to simply spread some shame in the comment section.

I assure you "Bob" knows what a climate model is. It is just an extension of trying to predict the weather patterns from past data which they can't do for more than a few days into the future. Just like other so called "scientific" models, it is only accepted if it confirms pre-assumed ideas. It is not proof of anything. We won't know if it was valid for another 50 years. Odds are it will prove to be less than 50% accurate or less than flipping a coin. A large volcanic eruption, limited nuclear war, solar flare up or change in ocean currents could turn everything upside down in very short order. The climate pendulum swings back and forth. Theoretically, over time warmer air should hold more moisture which will result in more snow at the upper latitudes which will eventually bring on the next ice age. I suppose none of you noticed the basis of this map where "...future data comes from the WorldClim database of global climate data." "Future data" is just another set of assumptions and not PROOF.

OMG New Zealand has been totally annihilated!

Bob: "I assure you "Bob" knows what a climate model is. It is just an extension of trying to predict the weather patterns from past data which they can't do for more than a few days into the future".
Sorry Bob, but you've just doubled-down on proving that you really don't know what a climate model is. Climate is not weather, and does not determine short-term weather patterns "a few days into the future".
Just as there are sound statistical medium and long term analyses of the stock market, but nobody can tell you what any given share price will do tomorrow.
Bob: "Just like other so called "scientific" models, it is only accepted if it confirms pre-assumed ideas".
Not "ideas" Bob, but empirical data and well understood physical processes. There is nothing "pre-assumed" about data: it is what it is, independent of what we might want it to be.
Scientific models gain, and sustain, acceptance only by (1) explaining existing data/observations (2) making testable predictions about new measurements (3) being scientifically and mathematically consistent. There are no other criteria.

Obviously, there are more knowledgeable people on here than I. With degrees in chemistry, physics, mathematics and extensive computer programing experience plus 31 years of developing scientific instruments along with OE and WDXRF spectrographic analysis methods plus using most of the standard statistical tools, I have made a number of observations. First, I have never seen truly unbiased data. Second, I have always been amazed that so many people think the math purifies that biased data. Third, that the old saying about lies and statistics is absolutely true. Fourth, that so many people are so easily fooled by someone who dazzles them with charts and statistics which were purposely manipulated to sell something. I still remember the "great scientists" I talked with that bragged their model perfectly fit the data they were working with. It was an eighth order set of equations where any data always fit the model with nearly 100% accuracy no matter what was input. The results meant absolutely nothing.

Let me get this straight: The folks who can't predict tomorrow's weather, and whose computer models can't tell what the weather or climate were in the past (even given =all= the data), and whose computer models are constantly getting more datasets added which continue to refine the models (plural, since they can't agree on the data or the algorithms, either), are going to tell us what areas =might= experience harsher climate change in the future? Bwahahahahaha!
Let me give them a hint: All areas will slowly experience higher temps until Mother Earth decides it's time to reverse her trend and head toward another ice age, after which she will reverse herself and do it all over again, etc. Postmodernist neoMarxism is a much more real and present danger to us all.