[evol262]

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*.

[Izkata]

> 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?