It's very hard to accurately remember what people were saying twenty years ago. One way to resolve such disputes is with newspaper archives. The problem is that

It's very hard to accurately remember what people were saying twenty years ago. One way to resolve such disputes is with newspaper archives. The problem is that for every prediction you recall as being correct, skeptics can answer back with one like this one from the year 2000: https://web.archive.org/web/20091230061832/http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html https://web.archive.org/web/20091230061832/http://www.indepe... Headline: "Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past" According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said. David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually "feel" virtual cold. It's now 20 years later and it was snowing in the UK just last weekend, yet the credentials of these "actual experts" are impeccable. Climatology is in an especially vulnerable spot right now due to its heavy reliance on academic modelling, which post-COVID a lot of people associate with unreliable predictions + official denial of prediction failure. To tackle growing skepticism climatologists could try several strategies, one of which is to go through the list of prior failed predictions that skeptics like to raise and explain for each one what methodology changes were made in response.