If you want to believe things, pick a religion
In science, the test of truth is an experiment. Newton's laws of motion were an excellent theory confirmed by every test up until the orbit of Uranus. The difference between the real orbit of Uranus and the one expected from Newton's laws could be explained by the existence of another planet. This planet - Neptune - was found. When a theory makes predictions that turn out to be true, it is a useful theory. It is tempting to talk of the theory as being true, but that is a lazy simplification so that non-scientists don't stop listening when the sentences become long and complicated.
A few years after the discovery of Neptune, the orbit of Mercury was found not to fit perfectly with the predictions from Newton's Laws. Scientists knew the drill, and started calculating an orbit for Vulcan to explain the differences. Vulcan was never found. At some point, scientists should have accepted the absence of Vulcan proved Newton's laws of motion and his theory of gravity were wrong. Someone with a better knowledge of history and modern hind-sight might be able to put a date on that. In the mean time:
Sound waves are travelling changes in air density/pressure. Ocean waves are travelling changes in water depth/speed. Seismic waves are travelling changes in rock position/velocity. Take away the air/water/rock and the waves cannot travel. Light waves are travelling changes in the electric/magnetic field of erm, err ... luminiferous aether. Take away the aether, and light cannot travel. A vacuum pump cannot suck luminiferous aether out of a bottle. Light waves can travel through the vacuum between galaxies.
Michelson and Morley saw this as an opportunity to discover the grand universal system of co-ordinates. They devised and experiment to measure the velocity of Earth through the aether. They got the answer 0. They waited twelve hours for Earth's spin to get the velocity of their equipment in a different direction, measured again and got 0. Months later, with the Earth's orbit taking the lab in a new direction, the velocity of Earth was zero compared to that of the aether.
At this point scientists could have proudly proclaimed they had _proved_ that the Earth was the centre of the universe, and everything rotated around us. The enormous centrifugal force on distant galaxies was countered by erm, err ... magic. Luckily, hammered in the face by experimental evidence, the theories of luminiferous aether and the grand universal system of co-ordinates were shoved in the dustbin and replaced by special relativity.
Newtons laws of motion are wrong. They make excellent predictions for low velocities, but get worse and worse as velocity increases and are completely useless near the speed of light. Likewise Newton's law of gravity is completely wrong. It gives good results for the gravitational field of a planet that start to go a bit wonky near a star. When you get really strong gravitational fields near a neutron star or black hole, you need general relativity to calculate what happens.
As I am a scientist, I would love to test climatology with an experiment. All I need is a million copies of Earth, and to be dictator of all of them for a few centuries. I would impose different carbon emission limits on each planet and draw some graphs showing how carbon emissions relate to climate. Anyone willing to provide a grant to fund my experiment?
Without such an experiment, I am happy to reduce carbon emissions as a precaution against the possible effects predicted by simulations. Statements about inevitable doom based on climate _simulations_ wind me up. Luckily, certainty is not required as there are excellent reasons not to be completely dependent on fossil fuels that have nothing to do with the climate. Lets build a few windmills where they are cost effective, put in solar panels where the sun shines and build a pile of nuclear power stations so we do not need to burn mountains of coal, oil and gas bought at enormous expense from countries where we are not entirely popular.
It would be nice if people's attention span could last long enough for 'this theory has not yet been proved wrong'. Until then, I am going to have to put up with 'this theory is true'. It would be great if climatology were a science based on experiments instead of simulation. No-one can afford the experiments. It would be astounding if the UK adopted an energy policy that actually added up but if we cannot have that aren't we lucky that anyone mentioning the problem online can be silenced by the state?