The "fake" events like the flood in the Netherlands and California weren't being predicted they were examples. They have things that are right. Millions of people are at risk from rising sea levels and increasing intensity of storms (See video he talks about a massive Pacific Hurricane that ravaged the Philippines). Around 60% of people in Bangladesh live in areas at or near sea level. Rising sea level are already displacing them, mostly into India, and people are being killed in India simply for trying to enter the country. And if the rising sea levels aren't putting them at risk then flooding is. People have lived almost since antiquity in the region and this is the first time that they are actually having to abandon regions because of more intense flooding. You really think having 168 million people in Bangladesh becoming displaced won't cause conflict? America isn't the only country on the planet and bigger government isn't the only counter to global climate change.

Has anyone said when 168 million people in Bangladesh will be displaced? It would be nice to note it so when that year comes and goes, it can go on the list of incorrect doomsday predictions. For the record, I am not saying there is nothing to climate change. Just that all predictions of awful and amazing events, when dates earlier than 2015 were attached to the predictions, have failed to materialize. Off the top of my head: Dr. James Hansen said in 1988 that in 20-30 years, Manhattan would be partially submerged and high winds would break apartment windows. Dr. Michael Oppenheimer said in 1990 that by 1995, there would be dust bowl conditions in the U.S. and Eurasia, dust would crash computers and strip paint off houses, and there would be food riots. Al Gore said, repeatedly but most recently in 2009, that the North Pole would be ice-free in the summer by 2013. Gore also showed pictures in his Inconvenient Truth slideshow of various cities partially submerged by water. (Current predictions, if you even believe them, are sea levels rising 4 to 17 inches by 2100.) In 2000, senior research scientist David Viner was quoted extensively in The Independent, saying that "within a few years", snow would be a "rare and exciting event" in the UK. The article headline was "Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past." Snowfalls actually increased in both the UK and U.S., and White House "science czar" John Holdren said that is because of climate change. So if you are keeping score, that means less snow proves climate change, more snow proves climate change. As for the Pentagon report - I agree they are not predictions. But either someone thought they were realistic possibilities, or we wasted money on a report we knew was silly. Speaking of climate refugees (how many are there and how does that number compare to the past 50 years?), in 2005, the United Nations Environment Program published a report saying that by 2010, there would be 50 million climate refugees. My personal opinion - climate change may be a problem at some point, but not very soon, and these weird, scary predictions keep happening because of the belief that the public is too lazy or dumb to take action unless personally threatened. But it ends up backfiring when every prediction misses. I personally used to believe this stuff, and am now of a "fool me twice, shame on me" mindset.

More snow, rain, and precipitation in general is what proves climate change. "But Britton, how does that make sense?" You may ask. Well, its due to a basic behavior of our atmosphere. Its all about dew point. Dew point is a measure of atmospheric moisture. It is the temperature to which air must be cooled to reach saturation (assuming air pressure and moisture content are constant). A higher dew indicates more moisture present in the air. Basically, as temperature increases, so does the amount of moisture a parcel of air can hold. Increased avg temps means higher capacity to hold moisture, which means more moisture in the air, which means more precipitation.

But - there was probably more (or less) snow in 1550 than in 1549 or 1500. It fluctuates. But now, any outcome other than it no longer fluctuating proves climate change? :)

No, who said if it fluctuates or doesn't fluctuate that it proves or disproves anything?

Senior research scientist Viner said in 2000 that there will be less snow due to climate change. Science czar John Holdren said in 2010 that there will be more snow due to climate change. Unless I am more of an expert than either - don't I need to believe both? :)

Those are predictions. If we based the validity of a scientific field on all the predictions people made then there would be some issues. What matters is the predictions that come true.

Although, speaking of predictions, where have I heard the name Holdren before? Google, Holdren Oh, this guy! http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/dr-holdrens-ice-age-tidal-wave/?apage=2&_r=0 [quote] In 1971, long before Dr. Holdren came President Obama’s science adviser, in an essay [titled] “Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide,” Dr. Holdren and his co-author, the ecologist Paul Ehrlich, warned of a coming ice age. They certainly weren’t the only scientists in the 1970s to warn of a coming ice age, but I can’t think of any others who were socreative in their catastrophizing. Although they noted that the greenhouse effect from rising emissions of carbon dioxide emissions could cause future warming of the planet, they concluded from the mid-century cooling trend that the consequences of human activities (like industrial soot, dust from farms, jet exhaust, urbanization and deforestation) were more likely to first cause an ice age. Dr. Holdren and Dr. Ehrlich wrote: The effects of a new ice age on agriculture and the supportability of large human populations scarcely need elaboration here. Even more dramatic results are possible, however; for instance, a sudden outward slumping in the Antarctic ice cap, induced by added weight, could generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history. [/quote] Makes me wish I could go back to 1971 so I could panic and give him all my money to try to melt the North Pole. Seriously, at what point does being right become a bigger factor than being profound, caring, visionary or whatever we think these guys are?

I don't understand your question. Also, the whole prediction of the ice age in the 70s was not by supported by the majority of scientists.

It was supported by Dr. John Holdren, science czar, who successfully predicted in 2010 that it had snowed the week before, though. So, we are in good hands :)

The thing is, though - if you predict every outcome, some of them will come true. To seem credible, the predictions need to be, first of all, predictions ... Holdren was reacting to snow that had already fallen ... Second, consistently more accurate than random chance. If they said "look, we don't really know yet, we are still figuring it out," I would respect that more.

People are asked to make predictions, so they make them. If you really want to analyze predictions you're going to have to start reading scientific papers, not googling media outlet's stories on them.