Are you seriously arguing the analogy? As long as they are producing testable hypotheses and gathering new data to (in)validate their predictions, they are doi

Are you seriously arguing the analogy? As long as they are producing testable hypotheses and gathering new data to (in)validate their predictions, they are doing science. And if their theories make accurate predictions, it literally does not matter if those theories came from computer modelling, mathematical proofs, inspiration or divination. If we could make accurate predictions about the function of the universe by casting chicken bones, that would be science. Even though we wouldn't have the first clue what mechanisms might make it so. There's no shortage of such situations in science, where theories produce useful results despite no understanding of the underlying, clearly complex systems that drive them. e.g. The Placebo Effect, Gravity, etc. You seem to be arguing that every time science approaches a complex situation, which it doesn't understand and can't explain from first principles, that we cannot apply the Scientific Method. And that is patently false. That is exactly how we have come as far as we have. By creating falsifiable hypotheses, testing their predictions and refining those hypotheses. Your hand-waving doubts and fears about complexity and methods is fundamentally anti-science. You are not only a 'climate skeptic', you are apparently skeptical of man's ability to use science to investigate and understand the universe at all.