Macroeconomics really strains the definition of 'science'. Few economists would place their field's predictive or descriptive power anywhere near that of chemis

Macroeconomics really strains the definition of 'science'. Few economists would place their field's predictive or descriptive power anywhere near that of chemistry, physics, biology, and all the other hard sciences that are part of climate science and the analysis of its effects. And I haven't yet seen people in the fact checking / 'allowable speech' sphere bring up most any social sciences as being settled or beyond reproach enough to take down content. Given that there are so many unknowns about the extent of the nth-order effects of climate change (e.g. ecosystem collapse), I find it laughable that economists have a macro model that has any level of certainty to it. They can't even get relatively static situations correct, let alone literally world-changing ones.