For me, and many other like me, it boils down to this: How accurate is the science on climate change?
If it was accurate then there would have been a consensus predicting these events. Instead what we see is many groups throwing out different predictions, and when everyone is guessing something different there is inevitably some who are right and some who are wrong. However, the fact that there is no consensus means that there isn't accuracy in the field of Climate Change and the fact that the most public predictions have been so diametrically opposite to the results demonstrates a lack of precision.
You have to be more precise. What predictions are you talking about?
No field of science can or should tolerate inaccuracy and imprecision. Until scientists can agree on models that correctly and reliably predict the effects of carbon on climate, the field of climate change study acts more like a religion in that it asks us for faith instead of facts.
This is just silly. Accuracy and precision are two entirely different things, and *every* scientific discipline tolerates imprecision.
This would require models that make precise predictions that are reliably accurate.
Give an example of a precise *climate* prediction, so we know what you're talking about.
Even the ones that do predict well are not consistent, and quite often contain constants that are not understood and certainly weren't predicted.
Your definition of science rules out physics, which is full of arbitrary constants. For example you may remember the equation for gravitational force from high school physics: F = G *m1*m2 / r^2, where G, the universal gravitational constant, is chosen experimentally to make the equation work. It rules out chemistry and materials science because we measure the physical properties of compounds rather than predict them. It rules out electromagnetism because of the empirical factors ( e.g. 8.854187817 x 10^12 farads/m) needed to make Maxwell's equations work.