A warm day in winter doesn't disprove the axial tilt theory of seasons.  Statistics are data, not explanation.  Testability is a subset of invariability.  
But an invariability standard for explanations is not the largest set.  Invariability is a subset of broad applicability.  The best explanations are broadly applicable, across many varieties of variance.  General relativity is more broadly applicable than Newtonian mechanics (sort of).   Math is the definition of variability, it's water.   

An explanation should not, for itself, include elements that don't contribute, but explanations often do include elements that don't contribute to their explanatory task because those elements are part of other explanations.  
A simple explanation of seasons as a result of axial tilt doesn't need features accounting for variable weather.  It is most true to itself when considering only an unchanging sun shining on a featureless globe and atmosphere, both made of uniform substances.   But weather is real anyway and needs explaining, so features accounting for weather don't detract from the more overarching theory, they make it more accurate.  Zeus sometimes intervenes to make local weather different from the way Persephone wants it.

Entropy is increasing, order is declining.  Yet this is entirely due to inertia and it's true only if you disregard the fact that nuclear forces hold atoms together and gravity pulls stars together and evolution makes intelligence.  Gravity by itself would be adequate in a universe of the right kind, it would be enough to draw everything back eventualy to create big bounces.  And it's not just gravity.  The fundamental forces all oppose decay and support order in how they make up the fields of quantum probabilities.  I propose there are additional forces involved.  They are not an unnecessary feature, they are broadly useful.  

Sure, the human perception of synchronicity could be explained by other things.  Alternate and simpler explanations are better only if the sphere is perfect.  A theory that explains many things might be better if many things need explaining.  It might not be swamp gas.  Reality often includes things piggybacking on each other, parallel lines.  A simple explanation for water collecting in depressions is that water has a tendency to go toward the center of the Earth (out until the energy of the force of gravity acting on distant enough water is suddenly less than a quantum).  But a theory of gravity applies more broadly and a theory somehow quantizing gravity would be broader yet.  Humans tend to try to progress, but that doesn't mean there can't be another force promoting human progress if there's a reason for one.  Such a force would be bound up with the human tendency to progress, two lines paralleling each other.

Is theoconsequentialism overly variable?  It basically says that there is a very weak fifth force emanating from the entire cosmos and promoting order teleologically.  This force is so weak it cannot be detected against the background noise of other forces except in its aggregate effects which are particularly profound because its cosmic and teleological nature makes it operate strategically rather than stupidly.  If that ain't variable I don't know what is.  Everything about it is conveniently concealed (as anything yet "undiscovered" would be) except for its aggregate effects which humans have always detected as synchronicity (otherwise explainable as apophenia) and which we can also observe as the trend of human progress (otherwise explainable as human nature).  Fine tuning and the exceptional nature of Earth are swamp gas in that they can be explained by the anthropic principle: human favoring worlds just predominate in the set of human observed worlds, not in the set of all worlds.  Theoconsequentialism says intelligence fostering worlds are actually produced more profusely because they lead to more futures.  It is not a necessary theory but it is a multipurpose one.  If human progress turned back  that would disprove it, but there wouldn't be scientists to notice, so it wouldn't exist.  

Theoconsequentialism even explains dark energy.  We are in a particularly challenging universe because we are up to it.