What you say is true, but I do not see that as the issue. The models we are talking about are ECOLOGICAL models. Traditional evolutionists, Dawkins is the prime example, do not link Natural Selection with ecology.
So the question is whether or not ecology is directly connected with Natural Selection or not. Steve @glipsnort said that there is an “intuitive” link between fitness and ecology. It is NOT an intuitive link. It is a LOGICAL link.
If we say that fit air rises and we know that it is fit because it rises, and then we discover that air that rises is always hot, we can say logically and accurately that air that is hot is fit and hot air rises. We could say that fit air rises, just as we say that fit alleles flourish and reproduce, but those sentences are meaningless.
We need to bring evolution into line with other scientific thought and clearly say that Natural Selection is based on then ability of alleles to adapt to their environment.
To say that the ability to adapt to the environment determines fitness, does not mean that we can predict how those alleles will adapt, just that they will adapt if they are to survive, which is usually the case.
We need to be seriously thinking about how humans can adapt to climate change and how we can slow down or reverse climate change so other life forms will be able to survive. This is not impossible because God has given us the minds we need to understand our world, our universe, our ecology.