I think they call themselves Climate Scientists, though there is not yet any Climate Science that has produced a theory capable of accurate prediction. I like to think of "Science" as theories that are accurate to withing 1% of point. Engineering is practice to better than 10% of point. As of yet there is no "Climate Science", just scientists trying to develop same. They have a long way to go and given that the "system" (poorly defined by the lot of them) is likely chaotic are unlikely to get to <1% of point predictions.
“I think they call themselves Climate Scientists, though there is not yet any Climate Science that has produced a theory capable of accurate prediction. I like to think of “Science” as theories that are accurate to withing 1% of point. Engineering is practice to better than 10% of point. As of yet there is no “Climate Science”, just scientists trying to develop same. They have a long way to go and given that the “system” (poorly defined by the lot of them) is likely chaotic are unlikely to get to <1% of point predictions.”
I think of a science in which a group of researchers generate testable hypotheses and then test them against reality. Then they honestly and accurately report the results.
By that standard, Climate Science fails the test of being a science.
I really don’t think the accuracy of the predictions has anything to do with it. A negative result is when your theory’s predictions are way off. Negative results are important scientific results.