“Climatology” As Pseudoscience

Let me voice an opinion on something where I am definitively not an expert, namely, climate science, if such there be.

Physical science is marked by the ability of its practitioners to make predictions and test them. This entails running a variety of experiments on physical systems in order to isolate causes and effects and determine the extant constant relations between them. But the Earth’s climate is a singular highly complex interconnected entity. For example, David Evans argues that there are “literally thousands of feedbacks, each of which either reinforces or opposes the direct-warming effect of the extra CO2.”

How are climate people supposed to run experiments on the entire planet?

I mean, anyone can construct a “model” of the Earth’s climate. But any such model has got to be arbitrary — both in the constants and relations between variables used in it — and to fail to take into account numerous causes (such as Evans’ feedbacks) built into the planet.

Even if a model predicts (or retrodicts) correctly, its success must be judged accidental or ad hoc and liable to change at any moment.

A climatologist must then endure the sight of his models being falsified over and over again with no real hope of ever getting it right. It’s a thankless job, even if it pays well.

Unlike economics, climatology obviously cannot claim that it’s an axiomatic-deductive a priori discipline, either.

So, at this point, I’m not seeing how climatology is a science at all.

Neither Low Nor High Climatology

The art of high physics consists in dealing with non-laboratory realistic environments, to assist in engineering and technology.

But this art depends on the rock solid foundations of the science of low physics, most of which has been shown to be the case in controlled environments.

However, the Earth is not a controlled environment. There is no low climatology, and hence, there can be no high climatology that can assist us in determining government policy.