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Firstly, I requested peer reviewed climate science papers supporting AGW that had been withdrawn and you come up with a list from Wattsup with no such information.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/
View attachment 2033335
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?
