I understand, and it must be a PITA for you if you absolutely must have the latest tech, bugs and all. But the software and even firmware industry now have a policy of "release THEN patch". I've always thought this irresponsible since the trend started in the 80's (before that programs were usually shipped bug free and fully tested - of course they were simpler programs too). With the advent of the internet companies got even sloppier. I mean, who DOESN'T have an internet connection to download a patch nowadays? Sigh.
So while it's not unreasonable to insist on getting value for your money, it is unreasonable to assume that the software industry responsible for your drivers will change habits that have been entrenched for many years, just to keep you happy. Their answer will be "wait a couple months and there'll be a patch that addresses this issue".
Any time "experts" flawlessly explain occurances after the fact, even when it contradicts their predictions, it makes me believe they have no idea what they are talking about.
This is the same kind of bellyaching people do about "revisionist history". It's actually the job of historians to revise history; history isn't what happened, which of course is fixed; it's the set of *our beliefs* about what happened, which ought to change as we learn more. Likewise it is the job of scientists to incorporate new data into the scientific consensus, either by retracting part of that consensus, or elaborating part of that consensus.
This case called for elaboration, since that was the explanation that fit the facts best. Your beef seems to be that the explanation fits the facts too well.
By the way you are confusing arctic and antarctic ice caps. This year's *arctic* (northern) ice cap had a greater minimum extent than last year's, but still very low by historic standards. If you are using *last year's* minimum arctic ice extent as a baseline, that's disingenuous because last year was a historic low. This is like the way denialists try to prove climate is not warming by choosing 1998 as their baseline; that's dishonest because '98 was a record high year (it has since dropped to third place).
Sure, but with this article we should admit there is still a lot of climate phenomena we do not understand, and therefore cannot accurately predict what will happen in the future
There's lot we don't understand about biochemistry, but we still know that arsenic is poisonous to humans.
There's a lot we don't know about physics, but we still know that a sphere of plutonium-235 around ten kilos will undergo a sustained nuclear chain reaction.
We don't know a lot about climate phenomena, but we do know that increasing global CO2 concentrations from 280 to 400 ppm will trap more energy in the Earth's atmosphere.
Not knowing *everything* is not the same as knowing nothing at all. Often the limitation of our knowledge is not *accuracy*, but rather *precision*. We know that an oral dose of 200 mg/kg of arsenic is fatal to the average human in under ten minutes, and that the fatal dose varies with body weight. That is accurate toxicological knowledge. We don't know *precisely* the minimum dose needed to kill any specific individual. We know that increasing average global CO2 concentrations to over 400ppm will cause a reduction in the total extent of seasonal ice, but not whether any particular ice structure will decrease or even increase in any particular year.
The moon is a planet just like the Earth, only it is even deader.