Example 1: Applying Marcomony to AGW

Looking only at the scientific treatise of anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) The political treatise should be specifically avoided through these steps.

 Step 1) Identify repeatable observations relevant to the paradigm. The observations that are repeatable involve primarily to look at other planets. Venus was found to have a runaway greenhouse effect as a scientifically tight argument that explains the far higher than predicted surface temperature of Venus. Applying that tight science to Earth and Mars gets a reasonable baseline for how the greenhouse effect has been relevant in Earth's and Mars' history, and how it may pan out in the future if greenhouse gases breach certain thresholds. Although this has identified how temperatures can be radically different on these planets, it is still an open question of degree of importance of closeness to the sun (among other factors) in comparison to greenhouse effects. Also, the same physics that is invoked to predict weather is extended into plausible climate predictions.

Step 2) Identify axioms specific to the day to day working of the science as it is practiced. One that I found was an implicit premise that the Anthropogenic "signal" that is the climactic effect attributable to human emissions can be empirically measured independently of transient weather effects and "noise" climactic effects. Another is that this signal is reversible only by the reversal of the causal anthropogenic emissions rather than compensatory deliberate human intervention that attacks the climactic signal directly. A third axiom is of the null hypothesis that neutral or nil human emissions would or could not result in civilisation threatening climate change either from other causes that would be no different with human activity, or that may have been mediated by human activity (eg. If global warming reduced the impact of a naturally occurring ice age)

Marcomony does not dwell on the reasonableness or otherwise of the identified axioms. The primary purpose of identifying them is to judge them on the ability of those axioms to be verified empirically, whether there is an implied shift in the burden of proof in their favour, and how much the whole paradigm relies on these axioms to come to scientific conclusions.

Step 3) Marconomic analysis of the axioms. 1st identified axiom: Whether a piece of data, such as global temperature average or one of the many other thermal energy measures employed can be empirically verified as an anthropogenic signal. Empirical verification can only really happen with predictions being fulfilled in the timescales of decades. This is clearly a work in progress. As far as the burden of proof goes, it has clearly shifted. Other signals, such as solar "signals" have a considerable bar to jump compared to the anthropogenic signal which, within Climate science peer and informal circles, is statutory in the sense that peer reviewed articles do not have to justify stating that there is an anthropogenic signal.

2nd identified axiom. That the anthropogenic signal is only reversible through reversal of emissions. Empirical verification of this is unlikely either way, until the first axiom can be empirically verified, and different strategies employed over decades in succession. If global average temperature is the issue, then this axiom is quite dubious. If more complex climate measures can be empirically verified, then there may or may not be a case. Burden of proof should be balanced, but is in favour of the axiom.

3rd identified axiom similarly is protected from the burden of proof. 

None of this means that Climate science is wrong, and we are not looking at the political or social implications. 

What insights can Marcomony garner that parsimony wouldn't?

Certainly, a focus on how the science can be usefully predictive rather than explanatory of the past. A thought experiment that reverses the burden of proof is worth doing, but there is an important backstop in the original axioms. That is ad extremis, greenhouse gases do eventually effect climate and temperature. This is empirically verified by planets such as Venus. 

Parsimony would dictate that human emissions are the cause of any measurable climate change. Marcomony would prefer climate science that makes useful predictions. Medium term predictions (eg. Over a few years) that are correct and reliable would give us more confidence in the systems calculating predictions in the decades timescales.