Climate alarmist evidence = models based on models, based on models

Models all the way down

In a dispute on YouTube over climate (Why the sun CANNOT be behind global warming | by Simon Clark) I complained that the explanation given lacked empirical support, and that other factors are also responsible for atmospheric warming; so one cannot prioritise one cause over another without empirical support. Later 4 citations of studies were given, as 'evidence'. But when I looked into the 4 studies I found the first 3 were entirely model based. This is very typical of how climate alarmists reason. They actually think the models they write of how the atmosphere supposedly generates a greenhouse gas effect are 'settled science'. So settled that they can subsititute models for data at every level.

I ask for empirical studies, you give me model studies; our reasoning is incommensurable.

'Evidence'

2006) The first paper, Hansen et al. opens with: "We use a global climate model to compare the effectiveness of many climate forcing agents for producing climate change" <- so no empirical research - just the opinions and biases of climate alarmist modellers.

2010) 2nd paper, Schmidt et al, is more promising: "we review the existing literature and use the Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE radiation module to provide an overview of the role of each absorber at the present-day and under doubled CO2" <- ModelE eh? Surprise!, it's another model: https://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/

2016) The 3rd: by Shine et al.: "New calculations of the radiative forcing (RF) are presented for the three main well-mixed greenhouse gases, methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide." <- The calculations are done by modelling

2020) 4th, Sherwood et al.: "We assess evidence relevant to Earth's equilibrium climate sensitivity per doubling of atmospheric CO2, characterized by an effective sensitivity S. This evidence includes feedback process understanding, the historical climate record, and the paleoclimate record" <- this is the only paper of the 4 which uses actual data, but the data will not do. The climate record is disputed. A sensible solution to this is for greenhouse-gas-climate fans to figure out a way to empirically measure the radiative climate forcing they believe in. This has been attempted over clear skies; so my request is not fanciful.

The 4 papers presented as empirical evidence are models piled on models piled on models. The 'evidence' is effectively hidden or secret because most of them are computer code. Even were I able to see the code, I'd need to reverse engineer it to understand it. This code (unlike my clean code) is probably dirty and oblique; because most computer code isn't very well written. But that is not my main complaint: I basically dispute the working of those models. Althought they never tell us what their models are, we do actually know something about climate alarmist greenhouse gas model (AKA: GHGE). Falsification of the GHGE | GHGE is not a scientific concept

Citations

2006. : Efficacy of climate forcings. Journal of Geophysical Research, 2006.
2010. : Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect. Journal of Geophysical Research. 2010.
2016. : Radiative forcing of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide: A significant revision of the methane radiative forcing. Geophysical Research Letters, 2016.
2020. : An Assessment of Earth's Climate Sensitivity Using Multiple Lines of Evidence. Reviews of Geophysics. 2020.