Denial movement crumbling

Originally posted by redpencil: ↑

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/30/some-failed-climate-predictions/
"Here, for the first time in public, is Javier’s entire collection of massive, “consensus” climate science prediction failures. This collection is carefully selected from only academics or high-ranking officials, as reported in the press or scientific journals. Rather than being exhaustive, this is a list of fully referenced arguments that shows that consensus climate science usually gets things wrong, and thus their predictions cannot be trusted.
To qualify for this list, the prediction must have failed. Alternatively, it is also considered a failure when so much of the allowed time has passed that a drastic and improbable change in the rate of change is required for it to be true. Also, we include a prediction when observations are going in the opposite way. Finally, it also qualifies when one thing and the opposite are both predicted.
A novelty is that I also add a part B that includes obvious predictions that consensus climate science did not make. In science you are also wrong if you fail to predict the obvious."

The article goes on to list error after error - read at your leisure.

Now the same simple google search provides many more articles I could have provided. Says little for your awareness and research skills that you require me to spoon feed you.

Conclusions

There is only one possible conclusion regarding the reliability of climate predictions. Outspoken catastrophic-minded climate scientists and high-ranking officials don’t have a clue about future climate and its consequences, and are inventing catastrophic predictions for their own interest. Government policies should not be based on their future predictions.
Another conclusion is that studies and opinions about future climate are heavily biased towards negative outcomes that fail to materialize, while ignoring positive outcomes that are materializing.

Firstly, I requested peer reviewed climate science papers supporting AGW that had been withdrawn and you come up with a list from Wattsup with no such information.

Here is the level of credibility of your link.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/watts-up-with-that/

CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE
Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not alwayssupported by evidence. These sources maybe untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources.

Secondly a small sample of the information provided in your Wattsup list is either non existent, cherry picked press reports, or just plain wrong
E.g.
Item 1 30 years old and broken link.
Item 2 30 years old and broken link
Item 8 Let's look at this more closely. Two papers that predict opposite effects due to warming. One paper predicting that melting glaciers will cause a 1ms increase in earth rotation time and another earlier paper that shows changes in water density and ocean currents due to warming will cause a 1ms reduction in time of daily rotation.

Why would anyone claim these papers show conflicting predictions when they are looking at two entirely different aspects of the effects climate change?

You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel when the best you can come up with is Wattsup.

What else have you got?

Expand

.
Redpencil asked "What else have you got?"

Redpencil, I think we should add a little more to the rating that goes with https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/watts-up-with-that/. Let's add mediabiasfactcheck.com/ "history" so we understand where it is coming from and the type of person who runs to its site to validate their own concensus. It provides its own interpretation which i provide next:

History
Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog promoting climate change denial that was created by Anthony Watts in 2006. The blog predominantly discusses climate issues with a focus on anthropogenic climate change, generally supporting beliefs that are in opposition to the scientific consensus on climate change. According to their about page “WattsUpWithThat.com is the world’s most viewed website on climate.” Anthony Watts states he was a “television meteorologist who spent 25 years on the air and who also operates a weather technology and content business, as well as continues daily forecasting on radio, just for fun.

My problem with what you are doing Redpencil is your comment strikes of imbalance as seen by what is in bold above. Surely you can see that science is Not and never supposed to be consensual. To miss this is to not understand science. Clearly with you promoting this opinion,
you ignore all arguments on the AGW science because you believe that consensus makes it right.

So let's look at this History: mediabiasfactcheck tries hard to distort what WUWT is all about by cleverly stating that "The Blog predominantly discusses climate issues with a focus on anthropogenic climate change". Well right, right? But alas no. If you've smart you will know, WUWT missed the bus and should be only discussing "scientific consensus on climate change" as highlighted, .

It is so rarely remembered that the AGW of Climate Change is purely an hypothesis. This is what WUWT looks at. Those in consensus like to idolise it for they say it cannot be checked due to it's complexity (hence talk in terms of models which are so bad they have been adjusted and adjusted ... that I have forgotten which ones to criticise). It is an hypothesis that fails being an hypothesis so to speak!

Thus as mediabiasfactcheck stated, the website "Watts Up With That?" has a focus on "AGW climate change" not the generalist "Climate Change" where laypersons bound. So mediabiasfactcheck throws in the word "beliefs" so as to fraternise, like it using the "consensus" term to punctuate why the generalist "Climate Change" must be right (to the layperson). What specifically is actually classified as Climate Change anymore" It is all, yet nothing - just perfect for the layperson. It becomes clear that mediabiasfactcheck is so far outside the league in this scientific debate that it must be an IPCC donkey.

So instead of "promoting climate change denial", we instead see that WUWT as stated: "... focus on anthropogenic climate change" the difference you will note is in the source of the change - man-made Carbon Dioxide. Consensus scientists, however, then meekly report temperature and Carbon Dioxide rises and safely ignore many other variables like the sun and water vapour effects (The latter are not used in their models).

Naturally if you cannot prove some theory to be, well, proven then you better talk it up as "others denying the consensus". It also is important for the consensus AGWer's to quash the scope, the rigor of any opposition analysis by ignoring that that they have anything at all going for them. That is, in any way they can! For that use words like CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE and you find this on mediabiasfactcheck.com.