Michigan State professor labels skeptics as "global warming cynics" due to not getting on board with the extreme weather link

“Department of Sociology. That means that he knows nothing. about any real world phenomena.”
——————————————–
There ya go…fixed it.

They have a theory ? When are they going to tell us what it is ?
Has it ever risen above the level of a conjecture (now discredited) ?

At 12:16 AM on 25 November, Bob Ryan uttered a blanket condemnation of sociology as a field of organized study, writing:

Sociology as a discipline found its way into the universities in the 60’s and 70’s as the new universities of that era, had to find some way of capturing the interest of students. It did indeed capture their interest with its absence of any requirement for formal analysis – no mathematics, no laboratories, and no hard thinking required. It also drew into academic life teachers who, by and large, would not have been remotely considered for appointment in any mainstream discipline. It’s intellectual pedigree: the writings of Max Weber, Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx. Karl who? Yes, you read it correctly – the author of the Communist Manifesto and a variety of other tracts which led to that abomination of a political creed which enslaved half the world. But that wasn’t enough – they declared that the modern era ended with the holocaust and that we were no longer modern but ‘post-modern’. With thinking like that who needs reality? They did away with that too – reality is socially constructed. Sociology is the intellectual apologia for the left in politics – when we understand that, the rest falls into place.

Unfortunately, this is rather more an argumentum ad hominem (using a few prominently odious exemplars to take a whack at a whole approach to the study of certain phenomena) and a blanket dismissal of methodologies.
I’m not a sociologist, and I tend to agree with the general observation that modern American university-level Sociology Departments are raddled with leftards, but then what university-level academic departments today tend not to be totally dominated by government-as-god statist (indeed, explicitly socialist) doctrinaires?
In the so-called “squishy sciences,” however (and here we refer commonly to fields such as sociology, psychology, and political economics), because they are condemned as manure-polishing, there has been a tendency over the past half-century and more to apply the tools of mathematical analysis à outrance to support illusions of precision and validity which simply do not exist.
Vide econometrics, which are almost universally employed “…to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” In other words, duplicity in the service of con artists.
Might be better to call the approach “economeretricious,” and be damned to ’em.
However, the study of purposeful human action – praxeology, a term most commonly associated with Ludwig von Mises and the Austrian School of economics – ought not be dismissed simply because the information under consideration is acknowledged to be analog rather than digital.
So to speak.

Mathematical logic is appropriate to physics – the science that has become the model science, which modern positivists and empiricists believe all other social and physical sciences should emulate. In physics the axioms and therefore the deductions are in themselves purely formal and only acquire meaning “operationally” insofar as they can explain and predict given facts. On the contrary, in praxeology, in the analysis of human action, the axioms themselves are known to be true and meaningful. As a result, each verbal step-by-step deduction is also true and meaningful; for it is the great quality of verbal propositions that each one is meaningful, whereas mathematical symbols are not meaningful in themselves. Thus Lord Keynes, scarcely an Austrian and himself a mathematician of note, leveled the following critique at mathematical symbolism in economics:

It is a great fault of symbolic pseudo-mathematical methods of formalizing a system of economic analysis, that they expressly assume strict independence between the factors involved and lose all their cogency and authority if this hypothesis is disallowed: whereas, in ordinary discourse, where we are not blindly manipulating but know all the time what we are doing and what the words mean, we can keep “at the back of our heads” the necessary reserves and qualifications and the adjustments which we have to make later on, in a way in which we cannot keep complicated partial differentials “at the back” of several pages of algebra which assume that they all vanish. Too large a proportion of recent “mathematical” economics are mere concoctions, as imprecise as the initial assumptions they rest on, which allow the author to lose sight of the complexities and interdependencies of the real world in a maze of pretentious and unhelpful symbols. [6]

Moreover, even if verbal economics could be successfully translated into mathematical symbols and then retranslated into English so as to explain the conclusions, the process makes no sense and violates the great scientific principle of Occam’s Razor: avoiding unnecessary multiplication of entities.
— Murray Rothbard

Or even simpler – if real world temperatures tracked what the models predict, instead of parting company.