That's not the same argument. Some people claim that CO2 increase does not cause temperature increase and therefore temperature increase is not anthropogenic (which is what your link is debunking), but nobody claims that the CO2 increase itself is not anthropogenic.
I’ve heard people (seemingly educated and intelligent) making arguments like volcanoes emit more (I wasn’t sure when they said it at the time but I looked it up and it’s nowhere near the amount - humans win by an overwhelming amount in CO2 emitted each year even if you look at the biggest eruptions ever).
Yes, the usual denial arguments I hear are on the form of "the climate has always been that way", "it's variance on the solar output" and "volcanoes are the ones emitting most of those gases".
It's also quite interesting window to thoughts of other people. I find it extremely mind-boggling that we live in times of detecting gravity waves, building particle accelerators etc. and some people live in reality where we don't know how much energy we're getting from the sun or co2 from volcanoes.
We can’t predict the weather more than 14 days into the future.
It seems like the opposite to me, it’s a no-brainer that predicting what will happen to an immensely complex system, and making all these assumptions about what will occur 50-100 years from now is going to be hotly debated.
Are you intentionally trying to conflate weather and climate? Is it hard to believe that short term trends (weather) are much harder to predict than long term trends (climate) because you’re smoothing out the chaos of the short term behavior?
A poor analogy is that you can’t predict where an atom is located and its speed due to quantum, yet when you average over a bunch of atoms you some pretty useful bounds on the shape of the problem.
Also, we already have plenty of data to evaluate the models - climate models are underpredicting the consequences (ie things are hotter and more volatile than climate models predicted). This indicates the models are conservative about the predictions in the wrong direction (you want to be predicting 20% worse than reality than 20% better because of it impacts planning). The reason they’re likely wrong is that we don’t have a full accounting of the ways in which human activity causes warming.
When we throw a tennis racket with spin about one specific axis we cannot predict the tumbling motion .. that's weather.
What we can do is predict the arc of motion of the centre of gravity .. that's climate.
It's a no-brainer that anybody who confuses the two and hasn't put in the work to raise their understanding to intermediate axis instability is below the bar for admission to grown up climate modelling discussions.
Yet, if you're living anywhere north of Mexico City, it's almost certain that 12 weeks from now it will be much hotter than 12 weeks ago. In fact, it is such a basic knowledge that our ancestors with stone tools figured it out.
What's impressive is that some people are so invested in not understanding climate that they reject the notion that larger trends can be bloody obvious before anyone can predict day-to-day variances. (Again, a basic principle that our stone tools ancestors figured out.)
That's an apples to oranges comparison. Weather is not climate. Meteorology is not climatology.
Obviously, meteorology doesn't work over a 50-100 years time frame -- "What's the temperature on January 20th 2064 and 9PM" is an impossible question to answer. But climatologists are not attempting to answer the same question as meteorologists. They're studying a much easier variable to predict, which is averages of phenomena, where all the short-term complicated meteorological noise cancels itself out due to the law of large numbers.
