Calling anything a science can easily be construed as "simply an expression of our vastly inflated impression of ourselves." But then, the phrase "scientificall

Calling anything a science can easily be construed as "simply an expression of our vastly inflated impression of ourselves." But then, the phrase "scientifically proven" is philosophically flawed anyway. Technically, scientists of any field cannot prove anything: They can only demonstrate the degree of veracity their current understanding holds, and otherwise take notice of (apparent) natural laws, formulate (or otherwise divine) hypotheses, and refine (or extend) theories to help guide their research. Hence, any given science is, at its core, an "observational discipline." However, what makes it a science is the effort that goes into transcending the just-so of the facts (observations) and the hows of the laws towards the whys of the theories. On that basis, climate scientists are indeed doing science.[1] What makes things especially tough for them is that so much of their science is focused on the hugely chaotic system happening on essentially one specific planet. On top of that, most folks mostly know of the triumphs and failures of their local weather news, where someone somehow conjures an hourly prediction for their small patch of geography.[2] [1] http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_forecasting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_forecasting