Unrelated to the climate change stuff I think you need to differentiate "the process" and "the models" (which is the result of the process). Epicycles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle) was a good predictive model used for a while and developed as a part of science process. Yet, I think we all agree that Copernicus was right challenging them and he did it in accordance with the science process.

We came full circle back to epicycles, though. Fourier transforms can be viewed as a way to model any periodic signal as an infinite series of epicycles.

Models are not inherently scientific, just because something is trying to make predictions doesn't make it scientific.

May I ask, what do you think of economic models? Would you call them scientific? They are using similar underlying equations, both complex systems and they both make many assumptions.

> Models are not inherently scientific, just because something is trying to make predictions doesn't make it scientific.

No, but science is about making predictive models, and you can't criticize a predictive model without criticize the science behind it, if it is a model which purports to be produced by science.

> May I ask, what do you think of economic models? Would you call them scientific?

That...depends. "Economic models" can mean either "models of the economy" or "models produced as part of the science of economics"; the latter are scientific the former may or may not be.

And even among scientific models (in any domain, economics is in no way special in this regard) some are products of different stages of the scientific process; there are speculative models done in the exploratory stage of pre-hypothetical work in science, there are models that are concrete operationalizations of untested (or only loosely tested) hypotheses, and there are models which are themselves tested and represent the best current understanding of the phenomenon they are intended to model; these are all "scientific models", but they have different roles.