Climate Research is therefore not yet a "complete" science, as the final experimental proof will be available in 30, 50, 100 years from now.
I suspect it will never be a complete science. It's just such a complex dynamic system, and our ability to accurately measure stuff on a global scale is limited.
Even in the 30, 50, 100 years time, the "proof" may not be available. The result might match a prediction, but having absolute proof your model was right will still be elusive.
They already have not had the best track record in this regard.
Can you name ONE complete science, according to your definition?
If incomplete then there is no point ?
Well, Physics is strictly based on this concept of proof, so it's such a "complete" science.
We had several bad examples like Cold Fusion by Fleischman and Pons, and in Germany the "Physics Faker" Jan Hendrik Schön,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6n_scandal, which led to a stricter Peer Review process.
Peer Review I should add to my description of "Scientific Methods", and which is still lacking to the actual discussion about possible new room temperature superconductors.
Physics anyhow, does never raise the claim to find the absolute truth. The confirmed results give the best description of phenomena's at a given time, but can always be improved, complemented or even falsified at a later point in time.
I agree to Dave that Climate Research might face problems to really confirm their predictions, due to very vague measurements or unstable simulation models, also due to the complexity and chaotic behavior.
For me, that whole IPCC science community is non-transparent, and their simulations are very difficult to reproduce.
That's in big contrast to the usual behavior of the physics community. For example, when the New Kilogram was defined, you could openly follow the discussion and the experiments, how and when they made their decisive measurements on the Kibble balance versus the Avogadro experiment (Silicon sphere)- They also explained to the public, how they came to their conclusions.
Please, download the latest full AR6 report:
https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6/wg1/IPCC_AR6_WGI_FullReport.pdfTry to follow all their simulations, measurements, and so forth, which decide over the ww. strategy how to combat the global warming.
You can decide for a strict CO
2 budget, i.e. absolutely no more fossile burning any more, or you can take into consideration, that 50% of the emissions are absorbed by the oceans and by rising land vegetation, which would give much more time for changes.
The IPCC decided that the 2nd option is not feasible due to a probable depletion of this effect.
I'm following a Climate lecture series of a German physics professor, who recently notified, that this IPCC decision is based on a single, very nebulous paper, which is also not well cited in this report.
As this is only a singular indication, that the IPCC report might not be well founded, I want to understand more about that whole scientific construct.
So I will stay skeptical further on, but will not negate the whole Climate Change discussion, as I'm convinced since 1978, that it's one severe problem, but beneath many others, over-population being the worst.
On the UN charter for sustainability, it's also one item amongst 16 others:
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/ Frank