Science is a process with some disciplines allowing us to be very precise and others not so much.

Climate science is a very imprecise type of science with so much uncertainty that all we can do is offer ranges of output based on ranges of initial conditions, we dont even know which conditions are correct and we dont know what we are missing. Even the data we put into the models are highly debatable, and then we havent even added the fact that 125 years is not some objective way to measure naural vs human made influence.

But sure as usual just downvote all you want, that doesent make computer models or statistics any more science.

As usual. Ignorance, while feeling self righteous. But out of curiosity, have you actually studied some science, that you can make such bold claims, that computer models and statistics have nothing todo with science?

But maybe a different way: you really believe that all what humanity does, has no influence on the climate?

Or in other words, what part of the greenhouse effect, does not make sense to you?

There is nothing about the greenhouse effect that doesent make sense to me, the problem i have is with claims about what computer modeling can be used for.

Ok, we agree on that. But so far I only heird weird claims from the media, activist and politician side. The actual scientists do point out the limitations of their models. But still, if the overwhelming majority of the involved scientists say all their models and data does indeed point to human made climate change and warming ... then maybe there is something to it?