I clicked on a few "Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past" is about English snowfalls, and it is true that we don't have heavy snowfall, not sure why this is a failed prediction, it's more of a statement of fact.

Some of these other predictions aren't necessarily falsified.

Peak oil may have already occurred. The fact that we have to resort to offshore drilling shows the low hanging fruit have already been taken.

Another example of a debatable prediction is "Fifty Million Climate Refugees by the Year 2020" - this is something that environmental groups claim is a correct prediction as they attribute certain current wars (e.g. Syrian Civil War) to have been caused by droughts caused by climate change.

Some of these predictions were not made by scientists or were clearly just meant as a slogan to galvanise action - e.g.

2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World

This is pretty ridiculous. The "so-called 'experts'" are... journalists? Zero of these are studies. Zero. None. Nada.

There's the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.t...

And Breitbart: https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2015/06/01/media-fail-no...

And a bunch of other nonsense. Every one of these "predictions" is either a journalist trying to sell copy by exaggerating a story, or conservative media outlets clapping themselves on the back for pointing out that journalists who exaggerated were wrong.

None of these "predictions" are in any way science, and all of the climate modeling in the past 30 years has made predictions which are *more conservative than reality*.

> The "so-called 'experts'" are... journalists? Zero of these are studies. Zero. None. Nada.

> Every one of these "predictions" is either a journalist trying to sell copy by exaggerating a story

> None of these "predictions" are in any way science

That doesn't matter at all because this conversation is about public perception, and guess what makes it to the public?