By the way, I didn’t reply to a request for links about increasing inequality and declining intergenerational mobility and declining marginal tax rates because it is not controversial (i.e. there is so much evidence and discussion about it), the request seemed simply unreasonable time wasting to me. A good summary here:
http://www.princeton.edu/~rosentha/POLARIZATIONPOLICYINEQUALITY.pdf

I don’t want to hijack this blog into a discussion of climate science, but it is not really true that the climate is a chaotic system. Weather is chaotic, which is what prevents accurate long term weather predictions, but climate is the long run statistical average, which is different. The example often given is that you can’t predict on the toss of a coin whether it will fall heads or tails, but you can make a pretty good estimate of the likelihood of getting different numbers of heads and tails if you toss it 1000 times.

We are very familiar with the climate being a very predictable system, not a chaotic one. The seasons come in a regular fashion. You may get a cold day in summer (which is weather) but you won’t get all the days in summer being colder than winter. If you turn down the sun, the temperature drops very predictably. After a volcanic erruption, the earth cools very predictably. If you double the amount of an important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, the temperature rises.

Of course there is a great deal of uncertainty in climate science, and climate scientists emphasise it every step of the way. But not knowing everything is very different from knowing nothing. If someone’s body is racked with terminal cancer you can’t predict exactly when they will die, but you can predict that they will almost certainly not live another 20 years.

There is a lot of truth to what you say – but any predictive model in a chaotic system will only have a limited scope to see into the crystal ball. Futurology will always be an imprecise science, due to those very same las of physics.

“just thinking.. so many economists with the wrong models and ideas…and so many climate scientists also using models and theories to explain their assumptions and believes…”

No, these are not equivalent in any way. The term ‘model’ is misleading. Climate models are based on the laws of physics and chemistry, which have been discovered through empirical research over centuries. All they do is solve lots of equations. Their outputs are then tested against real data and found to replicate and predict it very well.

Economists just make up their ‘models’ and theories and equations. That is what is so shocking about the subject if you are used to science- none of it arises out of empirical research.

Economics is psuedoscience. That has no bearing on real science. If economists behaved like real scientists the subject would be very different.