> Sadly this will be used by propagandaists to doubt scientists
Why is that sad? What other conclusion could you draw from the facts?
Why is that sad? What other conclusion could you draw from the facts?
Science uses models to make falsifiable explanations and predictions. That these predictions are falsifiable and can be rejected, superseded or require fixing is how it's supposed to work, not an indictment against them.
No, it is not meant to work that way.
The situation were formed by pretty predictable and easy to model factors, and if the science have failed even with that, how can we right now trust it with the things that are obviously way harder to predict?
If what you claim were true, "pretty predictable and easy to model factors", it would have been modeled easily in a way that worked accurately to predict the future. Just the fact that this didn't happen should tell you it wasn't all that easy.
> if the science have failed even with that, how can we right now trust it with the things that are obviously way harder to predict?
What alternative to science and the scientific method do you propose?