/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15576814
>anon asks about ice caps
>you post sea ice
Good stuff

>>15493706
My point was never that climate science wasn't inaccurate. My point was that climate scientists didn't lie about it's accuracy - which is what the accusation about "scientists predicted no ice in 2016" or "linear trends are models" were about. There's a difference between criticizing scientific communication in the media and criticizing the researchers who were clearly honest about the extent of their knowledge.
However, you should note that empirical evidences of the historical series of the ice coverings, which are more trustworthy than mathematical models as they're based on reality, do show a trend of constant decrease. So yes, climate science is inaccurate, but it does seem to have enough accuracy to say "we're heading towards a global climate change with negative impacts for human society". It can't, however, say when with enough precision.
There are more positions than "climate change is a hoax" and "we're all dead by 1995 er 2005 er 2015 er 2025 er...". You don't need to have one of two strawmen opinions, you can also be reasonable and analyze the evidence at hand.