I was responding to a comment that said, "The movement has largely failed and gets to watch all their predictions come true." (emphasis added). Neither of those

I was responding to a comment that said, "The movement has largely failed and gets to watch all their predictions come true." (emphasis added). Neither of those statements is true, and is also some of the worst noise produced by the movement because it simultaneously reduces trust and drives apathy, pretending that no successes have happened and that science is unrealistically certain. There are no shortage of failed predictions not because of cherry-picking or moving goal posts, but because this is a normal part of the truth seeking process, but the extreme manifestation of it is an unfortunate feature of our media and political cultures. People with a bias towards alarmism on this topic imagine that alarmist messages and absolute statements will help to achieve the outcomes they seek, but the last 30 years make it clear that this doesn't work. A more realistic message, focusing on the most likely scenario from the IPCC rather than the worst-case scenario which the IPCC clearly states is to provide an upper bound and is highly unlikely. A straightforward presentation would be more nuanced and encourage the highest impact changes (a small tax that funded the replacement of coal plants with nuclear for instance) rather than proposing net-zero by 2050 which is almost certainly not going to happen based on the tradeoffs of doing so.