The charitable interpretation would be the catastrophic predictions in the "1980s", such as around the time AGW became widely publicized with Hansen's papers an

The charitable interpretation would be the catastrophic predictions in the "1980s", such as around the time AGW became widely publicized with Hansen's papers and testimony and UN efforts. https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 "[Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program]...says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000...governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control...The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years," June 29, 1989 There is a big difference between 1 degree in 30 years (slightly above what has been observed, mostly beneficial) and 7 degrees in 30 years (catastrophe). Note that the "10-year window" (and often shorter times) has been repeatedly invoked and repeatedly blown past throughout the 30 years. As Douglas Adams says — 'I love deadlines. I love the whooshing noise they make as they go by.' This has come from scientists (Peter Wadhams Arctic ice free by 2016), UN IPCC (Himalayan glaciers by 2035), political figures (Al Gore 10 years/12 years, Ocasio-Cortez 12-years), and celebrities (Prince Charles!? 96-months). James Hansen speculated (1988/1989) that "West Side Highway...will be underwater" - about 20 foot sea level rise, but sea level rise has remained constant at about a foot per century. Also droughts (have to ask for water), increased crime, and boarded up windows because of wind speed. Note that this was reported as "in 20 years" - so 2009 - by Salon https://www.salon.com/2001/10/23/weather/ https://www.salon.com/2001/10/23/weather/ reporting the 1988/1989 interview, but after this article was highlighted by skeptics, Hansen corrected the numbers saying it was for 40 years and with a doubling of CO2 (which would be really fast and outside the bounds of even the extreme scenarios) - http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110126_SingingInTheRain.pdf http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110126_Singing... Hansen also predicted (1988) strengthening hurricanes (no trend observed, despite warming, media attention, and increased observation) https://www.nytimes.com/1988/12/07/us/ferocious-storms-and-drought-seen.html https://www.nytimes.com/1988/12/07/us/ferocious-storms-and-d... Both sides tend to exaggerate their positions and ignore contrary evidence. Both skeptics and advocates tend to focus on "Scenario A" - the extreme, unrealistic worst-case scenario - rather than the more realistic moderate emissions, moderate warming scenarios. I wish both AGW proponents and skeptics would call out inaccuracies - even from "their own side". For instance, the IPCC's "Himalayan glaciers gone by 2035" was initially defended and widely publicized before being forced to be acknowledged as an error years later https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-him... The exaggerated sea-level rise predictions in the Salon article above stood uncorrected for years until it was called out by skeptics, then Hansen clarified the "40 years and doubled CO2".