You seem to have confused yourself quite badly here.
The best way of confirming the robustness of any science (is it or is it not an exact science) is by examining the "same data". You claim to be a scientist in which case you must be aware the burden of proof lies with the proponent of the notion the evidence NEEDS to stand scrutiny. Thanks to the citation supplied by @verrauxi where he inadvertently hangs himself again we are once again furnished with more detail about the litany of issues surrounding climate models - in other words the "same data" used by proponents of climate doom gospel has been exposed as utter cack. Given no observational evidence exists for said gospel the conclusion is inescapable - "climate science is not an exact science"
In answer to your question I can see why you are confused but clear thinkers not so much.
You don't have to answer this but I'm interested as to what branch of science you are involved in because you seem totally ignorant of the rudimentary principles that apply to science.
Right, I think I understand the confusion now. You are basing your argument against climate change on the belief that people are saying climate science is an exact science, and can be proved in pretty much the same way that the laws of physics are considered proven and exact (which is why they are called laws). I think that is referred to as a strawman argument and does the whole discussion a disservice.
Climate science is a different type of science to chemistry and physics. It is based on data gathering, analysing the data points, making a best hypothesis as to what the data means, and then challenging and testing those data points as far as possible. Physics aims to prove something is predictable and repeatable every single time such as Newtons LAWS of motion or Boyles LAW. Due to the many variables in climate, it will never be exact, which is why no one is claiming it is exact.
Now, there are millions of those data points available which have been analysed and checked by millions of scientsts and statistitians. And the absolutely overwhelming proportion of those scientists agree on the same conclusion - humans are contributing to an increase in climate change activity. And their findings have been published in peer reviewed scientific journals so that they can be openly and fully critiqued.
Yes, there are some scientists that have reviewed those same data points and arrived at different conclusions. Some of those have also been published in peer reviewed scientific journals which can be openly and fully critiqued.
For the general public that have not been trained in scientific methodology, they then have a choice. Trust the more than 97% of scientists that arrive at the conclusion that man made climate change is real, or believe the less than 3% that arrive at the conclusion it isn't.
Statistically, I think the 97% are more likely to be correct, which is what I base my opinions on. You seem to be agreeing with the 3%. Which leads to the obvious question of why? Do you believe they have access to data that the 97% don't and are therefore more knowledgable, or is it that you just don't want to accept man made climate change and are just cherry picking the statistics which support your point of view?
.
