Climatology is not so much a science as it is an application of mathematics.
Ever open a physics book? They are (at the undergrad level) a set of definitions of terms (force, velocity, etc) and then the math that shows how those things interact in the real world.
What undergrad physics has (and bridge building and aeronautics, etc) that climatology doesn't is the complete set of terms important to the result. Or they have at least enough of the terms to compute a dependable result to the safety limits required.
When Climatology matures, and starts getting reproducible results (as in the module accurately retells year 2005 by data from years 2001-2004) and accurate predictions (when the target date is in the future), there will be yet more math involved.
The problem now is that they aren't yet sure of all that they need to measure, and don't know how to model some things like cloud formation that they know they need. They can't even get the models to compute last years weather from the years before.
In the meantime, the psuedo-scientist alarmists are lying about (the hockey stick) or ignoring (sunspots) anything that stands in their path.