http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/02/ar...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/...
There is plenty of really bad predictions in circulation. The problem is, liberals have short memories. They don't remember What James Hansen said in 1999:
"Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought."
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/spect...
Leading scientists said snowfall will soon be a thing of the past (in the UK).
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment...
Then there is the famous Hansen graph of 1988 which showed near term trends if we cut CO2 to 0, cut it some, and continued on our current growth rate. Turns out by doing nothing we have matched the warming predicted by the zero emissions scenario.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/04/scary-e...
These are a few of the many examples I have saved. According to the libs, the sky is still falling, despite these misses.
Only scientifically illiterate and lying Deniers talk about predictions - and your question is further evidence that Deniers are clueless about every aspect of climate change, especially climate models. After all, a person has to be seriously stupid to believe that AGW theory is at all – or has ever been - based on model “forecasts.” Climate models have contributed to AGW theory in backcasting over periods of actual data where their accuracy and strength can be measured mathematically – and in this area their success is unquestioned (but that is probably partially an artifact of the fact that Deniers are too stupid to even know what they should be lying about that is relevant to AGW theory).
Given that you keep writing "scientists" in "inverted commas" I assume you are trying to suggest that they are "not real scientists". I guess then that you must be a "proper" scientist. What do you study? Your own "backside"?
Climate change is not a theory, it is a hypothesis, there has not been enough evidence to elevate it to theory status.
They are confused They predict animals will shrink or grow bigger . Water up to statue of liberty shoulders (Cosmos) .
More hookers etc. the worlds going to end
THey do but again you can't be expected to know such basic things
They have repeatedly published their predictions and models and most of them have turned out to be quite accurate indeed. The ocean temp has risen by a bit over one degree (just like they said) and the ice caps/glaciers are melting at rates even faster than previously predicted. You may want to check out these sites if you want to learn more.
<
They already do! And in peer-reviewed journals (unlike the predictions made by armchair scientists who publish at WUWT, JoNova, etc.
They have, some people just refuse to believe the findings
the "science" of global warming is now 40 years old. There is enough data collected now to validate computer models. Should the global warming "scientists" publish the predicted climate conditions for 6months, 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, 10 years and every 5 years after that so we can get a base line on how accurate their guessing really is?
Your question is ridiculous nonsense
you don't know what science is or how it works
