Well, that's ridiculously wrong.
The basic concept is actually fairly simple: Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere; humans are dumping massive amounts of GHGs into the atmosphere; this traps more heat, to a degree that overwhelms all natural sources of climate changes; this causes lots of problems for the Earth's environment.
Pretty much every scientist working in the field knows that a fuller explanation very quickly delves into
incredibly complex topics, such as (but certainly not limited to) infrared bandwidth absorption; varying properties of GHGs based on atmospheric concentration levels; heat interchanges between oceans and the atmosphere; methods of measuring surface and atmospheric temperatures.... I could be here all day.
As to the "regulation systems?" Yeah, actually, we understand most of those systems now, and they don't change "with time" (i.e. arbitrarily). Climate scientists have a pretty good understanding of most of the feedbacks involved. There is also strong evidence that as temperatures rise, we will hit tipping points where the additional heat will start unlocking carbon in various sources, thus escalating temperature changes.
We also know that in a lot of ways, we're making extreme changes to the environment. For example, there hasn't been this much CO2 in the atmosphere in about 900,000 years. There is no Top Secret Regulation System that will sequester half of the atmospheric CO2 overnight, and has evaded the attention of every single climate scientist.
There are some major uncertainties remaining (the most critical ones being cloud formation, and what humans will do over the next 80 years), but even given that fact, we have a very good idea of the impacts of human activity on the climate, and lots of major predictions have been accurate for several decades now.
Nope nope nope, that's total bull****.
When the climate changes, it can produce feedback effects. Sometimes the effects are negative (mitigating the change), sometimes they are positive (increasing the change). We have plenty of evidence that even a relatively minor change to the climate can kick off thousands of years of subsequent climate change -- e.g. the last Ice Age probably ended because of a fairly brief period of variation in solar radiation, which in turn started cycles of unlocking sequestered carbon/CO2 (i.e. positive feedback) that resulted in thousands of years of global warming. There is no magic which ensures that the planet remains within a specific range of temperatures.
More importantly, the climate does not magically "become something new" and suddenly start changing in wildly unpredictable or arbitrary ways. Warmer waters will always expand. Warmer ice will always result in more melting and less stable ice masses. CO2 will not magically start to cool the atmosphere when we hit 425 ppm. Chopping down trees is not going to magically produce more trees. The laws of physics are not going to magically change because the surface of our planet warmed by 3° C since 1750.
Nope nope nope, more bull****.
There is certainly more to learn, but climate scientists have a very solid grasp on the likely outcomes of a variety of changes to the climate.
Equally important is that are very open about what they know, and don't know. E.g. the IPCC has spent years developing precise terminology when communicating with policy makers -- they even have a 7-page document on how to properly use terms that express degrees of certainty, confidence, quality of evidence, agreement, and so on. Every major conclusion listed in the IPCC assessments -- and we're talking about well over 1500 pages of reports, summarizing what we know about climate science -- includes a designation of the confidence in that conclusion, and often identifies any uncertainties and/or any major lack of agreement.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/uncertainty-guidance-note.pdf
Maybe you ought to *cough* learn the facts before hauling off. Just a thought.