Kats did great in recounting what the information we have about the climate really is, without so much coloring or bias towards a certain conclusion. That is, until she got to the part of comparing ANY variable to "the straw that broke the camel's back", thereby asserting that there is a scientifically observable fact that states a change on the scale of human CO2 emissions can tilt the climate into an unnatural shift. As far as I know, there is no scientific evidence that has shown us that, especially when considering the info that she herself posted.
Current science can observe what the climate changes are as fact. What we see is indisputable. We see that the climate changes continuously. We cannot, however, see all the variables involved, and we cannot observe if one thing tilts the climate into a great change because we can't even see what all the other variables are doing and how they're doing it. Therefore, it is a leap, an extrapolation, to say that one small change (human or otherwise) can somehow tip the scales over all other existing variables. As far as I know, we don't have the scientific data to fully support that idea. If we do, I'd like to see it.
From what i saw, Kats had a very objective outlook on the whole issue, but then abandoned it to jump to a judgment, a conclusion, about the workings of it all that is perhaps not in accordance with the objective information she had obtained and communicated.