I mean I can make the same claims about economics. If you're making claims over the next few days (which I'd also add nearly nobody does), then they're going to be pretty close to accurate. And if you cherry pick the worst bit of one science and the best bit of another then clearly one will be significantly worse off.
The thing to understand is that there is near unanimous consensus among most economics questions when framed positively. Free trade is good but negatively impacts the lower classes in the first world, deficits aren't inherently problematic but should be contained, minimum wages aren't the best welfare tool but still have value, etc. The public debate about economics has very much in common with the public debate about climate change in that they don't resemble the academic debate at all. Economists have been in favour of a negative income tax, a land-value tax and a carbon tax for decades, for instance. And economists hate company taxes.
Macro does have significant problems, but less than 10% of economists are in macro. And nobody tries to do things like predict recessions, which is just a waste of time.
