@anon62122146, @Taymon: Good citations. And good observation.
It’s not just physicists, of course. Experts in many fields have to beware of the temptation to assume that they know enough to make assertions outside that own field But physics is so basic that it’s particularly tempting to make that leap. And, ok, maybe everything can be derived from physics – but that doesn’t mean the derivation is simple or obvious, or that trying to manipulate it at that level is at all practical. In some sense, the physicist outside his area is like the doctor outside his – the basic training is the same, but the advanced techniques, and the experience to work with them while avoiding errors, aren’t.
I’m not a scientist. I’m an engineer. I generally don’t argue with tools that have been demonstrated to work until/unless I can provide a better tool and demonstrate that it’s better… and I’m very aware that “better” always has “for these specific domains” attached to it. So: If you have a better climate model, PROVE it, don’t just assert it. Everyone will be absolutely delighted if you can do so. Or publish it and let folks help you refine it.
Also remember that there’s a perception issue. People who rant on the Internet in nontechnical spaces about “they won’t let me see their data or code” are mostly cranks. @peter_jones905, you may be the exception, but the fact that you are complaining here is more likely to make us doubt you than support you.
