Medical science is incomplete but we still base our health policies on it: health policies that cost a lot of people in more ways than one. In my opinion, this is a good thing.

Public policy is always based on incomplete science because we don't have any complete science (I'm not sure such a beast even exists). Whilst this is obviously an imperfect situation, I contend that it is preferable to basing public policy on no science at all.

Science to put humans on the moon for the first time, was completed. Science to produce many life saving medicines was completed, so too was the science of splitting an atom for the first time.

spindoc, put some sense into why plant matter in oceans was not included in IPCC claims about co2 causing AGW, instead of knocking the individual.

'morning JF Aus,

" spindoc, put some sense into why plant matter in oceans was not included in IPCC claims about co2 causing AGW, instead of knocking the individual."

I just did JF, Such matters are part of "natural variability" and as admitted by the IPCC,

Any impact by Algeal bloom on AGW comes under the heading of " natural variability" which the IPCC admits in their AR5 Science Report, "their inability to predict this ‘natural variability’ and the resulting ‘hiatus’ is due to the failure or unreliability of climate models”.

So why do you ask me to put some sense into categorical IPCC statements? Write to them and ask the question.

"Science to put humans on the moon for the first time, was completed."

No it wasn't. Science to put humans on the moon for the first time was physics. And if you think physics is a complete science then you're a barking lunatic.

"Science to produce many life saving medicines was completed"

No it wasn't. That's biological/medical science, and if it has been completed while I wasn't paying attention I have a question on behalf of a friend:
How do we cure - not treat, but cure - type 1 diabetes?
A question on behalf of myself:
What is the cure for male pattern baldness?
And a question on behalf of humanity:
What is the cure for all types of cancer?

"so too was the science of splitting an atom for the first time."

And we're back to physics. See above comment about people who think physics is a complete science and their relative sanity.

A word of advice: you'll have more luck snaring a unicorn or jabberwocky than you will finding a complete branch of science.

Public policy has never been based on complete science and it never can be. The best we can hope for is that it will be based on the best science as we currently understand it: which doesn't mean it won't be misguided or just plain wrong. I still contend that this is preferable to basing it on no science at all.

Is climate change a "branch of science" on its own or part of meteorology, earth science and/or atmospheric science?

Are scientific studies and projects never completed because they are included within the research of a particular branch.

I think the above discussion includes some comparing apples to pears.

"Is climate change a "branch of science" on its own or part of meteorology, earth science and/or atmospheric science?"

Dunno.

"Are scientific studies and projects never completed because they are included within the research of a particular branch."

I don't understand your question. Could you try rephrasing it?

"I think the above discussion includes some comparing apples to pears."

You are the first poster to mention either apples or pears. I suspect this is a cheap ploy to attempt to confound discussion. I know it's difficult to stay on topic when there are apple pies to bake and ripe pears to poach in a spiced rose syrup, but let's try to keep this topic focused on the completeness of climatology and save our cooking tips for a different thread.