I think the social sciences in general are sciences:
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/expclass.php
Sometimes they meet the label of “soft”sciences and sometimes not, depending upon the applications, methods and underlying constructs devised to be investigated. Climate science, physics and, yes biology are mostly part of the “hard” sciences.
This does not mean there are not mistakes, exaggerations, omissions, and even outright fabrications made in each of the aforementioned divisions of science.
Last year when I worked in a lab looking at the physiological basis of human behavior in a University psychology department within a psycho-biology lab the general methodology, questions asked and ways of arriving at answers were all scientific using principles/techniques of biology, psychology and biochemistry. Yet the results were embellished and written in the best possible light with an overkill of scientifically sounding verbiage. Also, the sample sizes were far too small and the sampling resembled too much a convenience sampling rather than a true random sampling, though it was not dishonest to state that the methods employed a simple random sampling technique. In other words the study was worthwhile to pursue and the questions asked were of interest along with the use of well operationally defined variables and SPSS analysis of the data.
The study to be honest, however, was not looking for an answer in nearly as complex a subject as climate systems and the potential for AGW and so called “projections” or “predictions” and it already met with serious limitations in producing robust results. My research was NSF funded too,
Side note:
Dr. B you should re-read the posts in response to yours especially regarding falsification and so forth… they could benefit you on your quest to understand Popper and post Popperian falsifiability in a correct manner. I work extensively within this subject matter and these models have been falsified by real world data. The models have failed.
I also want to to state that Rabbett Run is unfairly mischaracterizing Judith Curry as somehow encouraging violence against AGW proponents as well.This is a shame, I think, that many in and around the climate research/blog community is attacking Dr. Curry. Politics as usual.
Climate science is at times very good and scientific but not when it bases already biased claims upon falsified Global Circulation Models.
Now are air pollution, soot, benzene in water potential issues–sure, but even many of these issues in the developed world have improved.