Wrong.
Climate science is about defining the constants and observing the natural behavior and responses in different environments. Climatology will go deep into particle, chemical and geographical physics to establish it's own constants of cause and effect. With these constants it will do it's best to define the behaviors of the hadley cells, the kinetic energy traversing across the globe from warm to cold (and vice versa) areas (winds, ocean currents). It is like how biology will use these same categories to establish constants and it's patterns in nature.
Weather is a state. Weather men should always be allowed a range of right/wrong as our incompleteness of knowing where all particles in the solar system are and the incomplete climate science makes it (weather) very, very difficult to project. In fact, weathermen and the models are generally pretty solid at projecting outcomes using these constants despite all of this. They are going by averages and understood behaviors. So there is always more to the story, like with all sciences.
That doesn't mean that we should throw away what we know because of this, like you seem to be indirectly suggesting. We know how the human heart works in a very incomplete way, but we know enough about it to (imperfectly) perform surgery, if needed. You won't tell a heart surgeon to back off from your chest because he doesn't know everything about all there is to know about the heart and it's properties, right?
Same goes for greenhouse gasses. We know through direct observations and paleo-records what happens when the amount of greenhouse gasses are given an increased concentration. Greenhouses that are supplied carbon dioxide see a drastic increase in temperature. It is known that carbon dioxide's radiative forcing is 1.7 versus water vapor's .02 meaning it is a full 85x more powerful. However it isn't just CO2 that we are concerned about. The public barely mentions nitrous oxide, surface ozone, methane which all are 100-2000x the radiative forcing of CO2 (and a bunch of other chemicals) that have seen even steeper increases. We also know that some particles reflect sunlight which would cool the earth, like many dust particles. All particles have an effect on the overall radiative forcing on the earth.
We know these facts to be as true (as true can be) in physical science. The physics have been tried countless times from lab observations, the data collecting from sites around the world using placebo tests. So we aren't going to just say those tests are not real because we don't know everything there is to know.
I could literally right a thesis on what is wrong with your statements. It's crazy that someone who admits they know nothing about the subject will basically call out scientists as being idiots. My .......
