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.