You've eithercut and pasted that list from some political website, and not understood what you are doing, or, and probably more likely, asked an AI tool to construct a clever sounding post for you. You looked for something to confirm your bias. AI does this. It will metaphorically suck your d*ck if you asked it. This is a deliberately flattened list. You, or your AI pet, have put failed individual predictions, media exaggerations, conditional scenarios, and statements by non-climate scientists or officials into one pile, and used that dishonesty to imply that any error by any environmentalist somehow invalidates climate science. You lack any understanding how scientific evidence works. Science is not validated by compiling every dramatic statement ever made by anyone with a scientific qualification and then counting how many turned out wrong. If you were honest, then the relevant questions you should have asked yourself are: What did the mainstream literature conclude? What mechanisms were proposed? Were those mechanisms independently tested? And what happened when the predictions were compared with observations? The central proposition of modern climate science, that increasing greenhouse gases produce a warming influence, that the planet would warm substantially as concentrations increased, and that this would affect ice, oceans and climate extremes, has not been falsified. Global temperatures have risen, ocean heat content has increased, sea levels have risen and Arctic sea ice has declined. The fact that some scientists, activists, officials and journalists attached bad dates or exaggerated rhetoric to those trends does not reverse the trends. Your list lumps together Ehrlich's population catastrophism, a handful of 1970s cooling papers, media-amplified Arctic deadlines, statements by UN officials, conditional model scenarios and modern climate projections, as though they were all expressions of one scientific theory. The supposed “ice-age consensus” you bleat on about is a myth. If you had bothered to actually review yourself the scientific literature of the period you would have found that greenhouse warming was already the dominant long-term concern. But you didn't. You or your AI lifted some words from some random numpty you found on the internet that coincided with your own prejudices or prompt, which you then dishonestly presented as your own arguments. Science is supposed to be judged by whether its underlying mechanisms can survive repeated comparison with reality, not by whether nobody has ever made an overconfident statement. By that standard, rising temperatures, oceans, sea levels and declining Arctic ice are rather inconvenient facts to leave out of "your" compilation.
