The reliability of theory is inversely proportional to the complexity of the field.

The above is a general principle which applies to all scientific debate, and which should guide all political debate over issues involving science.

What does it mean? Reliability of theory, how much can we trust theory or theoretical models as opposed to simple, but theoretically inexplicable correlations? Inversely proportional, the bigger one element is the smaller the related element is. In this case, the more complex the science, the less reliable the theory.

Now let us relate this to sciences. In a rough order of simple to complex.

Mathematics (Most simple of all)

Astronomy (Only slightly less simple than mathematics)

Physics (Slightly less simple than Astronomy)

Chemistry (somewhat more complex than Physics)

Organic Chemistry (More complex than inorganic chemistry)

Biology (more complex than organic chemistry)

Medicine (more complex than biology, being a form of applied biology)

Climatology (roughly as complex as Medicine)

The above order is based in general on the history of these sciences. Mathematics was the first science to have reliable theorems which reliably produced predictable results. Astronomy was the next science to develop reliable theorems with reliably predictable outcomes.

On the other end of the scale we have medicine. Throughout its history, treatments based on theory rather than simple correlations have probably been more deadly than the disease. Whether we are talking the humours of Aristotle, the doctrine of signatures or any of a myriad other theories about medicine, the real systems are so complex and require so much specialized technology to examine accurately that up until recent times the beliefs of witchdoctors and shaman have been just as reliable as those of western medicine men.

Scientists seem oblivious to even completely ignorant of this slope in the reliability of theory. They seem to believe that since theory in physics allows for the accurate prediction of new elements in the periodic table, theory in climatology is magically just as reliable.

It's not, and this lack of reliability can be related directly to the complexity of the system being analyzed and the difficulties involved in making reliable observations.

The bottom line here is that theoretical models of the climate have not reached a stage where they are particularly useful, and are, when weighted more heavily than they deserve at a point where they are actually harmful.

One part of this is sunspot activity. There are two areas involving sunspot activity where theory is actually harming science in this field.

1) Predicting sunspot activity- A scientist found a correlation between planetary movements and sunspot activity. Theory does not explain this correlation so astronomers are acting as though it does not exist. This correlation predicted a drop in sunspot activity which is now happening and which has caught the orthodox astronomy community by total surprise.

2) The influence of sunspot activity on climate- The global warming has occurred at a time of increased sunspot activity. Some articles say a 1000 year high in sunspot activity, some articles say an 8000 year high in sunspot activity. Theory cannot account for how the increase in sunspot activity influences the climate, while the sun is hotter, it is not so much hotter that it would account for the warming. So theory leads scientists to ignore an extreme high in solar activity as a possible cause of global warming.

Recently some scientists have located a causal connection. The sunspots influence cloud formation which multiplies the effects of changes in sunspot activity, explaining the correlation.

Others have traced solar activity records and climate records and demonstrated that the correlation is consistent except when interrupted by volcanic activity.

The final analysis is simply that the global warming models are heavily theory based in a field of science where theory is not a valid guide to what is actually going on.

Finally, theory is never a reliable guide in the absence of factual observations and data to test theory. Theory is a good servant but a poor master.

__________________
"Yankee-Do: The Way of the American" A book I wrote never published about 8 years ago.

You should learn clearly the difference between theory and hypothesis.

and, might i ask, what is your background. I'm curious because i do want to know what mind would come up with such a ranking.