Oh, I see, so now FOIA-requests are bad too — EPA certainly would be far more affected by such "harassment" than US Marshals Service or any other agencies using Stingray for example.

Or am I missing some giant dollop of sarcasm here?

That is precisely why I am not arranging the links in the pretty little table you want.

Yeah, right. If the links really existed — as you claimed the do — you would simply listed them in the format requested — I am not asking for anything particularly complex — instead of posting yet again to explain, why refuse to do it.

Anyone who has made the least effort to study [...]

Gee, right. One would've thought, Hans Christian Andersen dealt with this kind of argument once and for all back in the 19th century, but, behold, yet another "scientist" tries to use it...

(a) we are dumping a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere

Maybe.

(b) higher CO2 concentrations will cause the planet to warm

They will? By how much?

(c) significant warming could cause serious harm

And you could save 15% of more on car insurance — your statement is just as non-committal as Geico's "promise".

My "if" condition is satisfied: there is substantial evidence that people are causing climate change and that climate change could cause significant harm.

Well, if there is such evidence, I'm yet to see it. You made claims, but you have not offered evidence. Maybe, this is not the right forum for such. I would've taken a scientific argument for it. However, being able to make real predictions is one of the requirements for a scientific discipline. Yet, you would not (or, as is rather evident by not, can not) offer any meaningful predictions, that have come true. Ergo, whatever it is you are practicing, is not science.

At this point, the burden of proof is on you.

Thank you for admitting, you have no proof.

Now, if you had a shred of common sense left still, you should be asking yourself this question: how come there are no obvious ways to satisfy this obnoxious guy's seemingly simple request? That's the only way for a healing to begin...

Every one of the links in this thread points to an easy-to-read article referencing a mainstream prediction

If this were true, you would've had no problem enumerating the pairs in the form I asked for. That you didn't do so suggests, it is not there. That you later try to switch the topic confirms the suspicion.

you will enjoy my challenge to you

Sorry, I don't feel like it. But I don't have to prove anything to you — I am not asking (much less demanding) you change your way of life to suit my views.

If there is substantial evidence that people are causing climate change and that climate change could cause significant harm

Begs the question, does not it? A giant "if"...

The only sound argument for inaction would be compelling evidence that harm will not occur

I see. So, unable to prove your contention, you are demanding, the opponents prove the opposite. Nope, not going to work. The burden of proof is on you. Put up or shut up.

Supernova observations can't be reproduced.

Nor can a particular rat be brought back to life to have an experiment reproduced on the same animal. But whatever conclusions you make from observing one supernova (or rat), better be supported by observing another.

Did you really something so obvious spelled-out for you, Mr. Scientist?

You care more about form than function.

If you had content, you would've had no problem shaping it into the requested form.

But, instead, so many posts — some of them outright whining — instead of simply offering the list requested... I think, I understand, why you are still sore with some of thems teachers of yours...

Until security is in a less sorry state I doubt too many people will stand in line to have the Internet wired into their nervous system.

Typing is so 20th century. Though voice-commands may be an interim method, the ultimate solution will involve implanting the thing into the user's body. Not necessarily the brain, but somewhere, where a nerve can affect it — and be affected by it.

Any way you slice it, if it can not be reproduced, it is not science. That does not mean, it is necessarily wrong, like I said. But science it is not.

Now, we know already, that poison is bad for you. But if a particular regulation seeks to, for example, further lower the maximum amount of some poison in packaging, making (or pretending to) a scientific argument, whatever experiment was used to substantiate the argument better be reproducible.

So what is your problem with this citation?

Each entry in the list I am expecting would contain two links: one to a prediction, one to a confirmation. You've offered only one link here (although, inexplicably, you've listed it twice). Therefor, your submission is automatically rejected.

Yes but the spied on military and diplomatic communications, occasionally big industrial firms and very importantly foreign communications in most cases. The NSA is more or less spying on EVERY communication and domestic communications almost as frequently as foreign.

You are looking at it wrong. The only limit of government's codebreakers — including the venerable Alan Turing — was the available hardware. They too listened for all communications — there just weren't as many at the time, and they could not process as much as their "descendents" can now.

They were limited neither by laws nor by ethics — merely by the tech. Being forced to prioritize, they concentrated on the entities you've enumerated, but NSA — thanks to Moore's law — does not... Whether we ought to clip NSA's powers or not, there really is no difference between them and Bletchley Park — both did/do everything possible.

And, BTW, ethics-wise, why is spying on an industrial firm any more acceptable than on you? Sauce for the goose, sauce for the quail...

I have to waste some mod points to give the reasons

Flattered.

Studies of human exposures to toxics over time and from a variety of locations likely cannot be reproduced.

Thank you for admitting so much. What the admission means, is that the studies are not scientific — because Reproducibility is one of the main principles of a scientific method.

Some (or even all) conclusions may still be correct, but the high horse of "science" has not spent a day in this barn...

This legislation wasn’t designed to promote good science—it was crafted to prevent public health and environmental laws from being enforced.

Which is just another way of saying, it was "crafted to prevent bureaucrats with nothing to lose from too much regulation, from regulating companies out of business for unscientific reasons."

No, sir. I do not claim to "debate climate science" or the finer details of your trade. I just want to see successful predictions made by the discipline. Because, if you wish to convince (and compel!) me to change my ways, you better have something more solid than "trust me, I'm a scientist".

Again, I'm looking for a list with each entry containing a link to a prediction and a link confirming it materializing. What you've offered so far (realiclimate.org, theconversation.com, newscientist.com) are all claims of successful predictions — but without actual predictions themselves.

What I'm driving at is that, once the result is known, finding somebody having predicted it in the past is easy — but that's too late. Having 10 grad-students, for example, you can have each of them predict a change to, say, ocean levels going from -1cm to +1cm in 2mm increments. Then, 5 years later, you pull out the "lucky" prediction and run with it, discarding all others.

So, what I'm asking, are the predictions prominent enough at the time they were made to warrant a web-page (such as a magazine article or official report of some kind), that came true...

As riverat1 admits here, he "tangled" with me on this matter before — and was unable to offer suitable citations. Can you?

I work on concrete solutions to climate change

Solving a problem, that does not exist. Yes, I understand, why you can't find yourself a real job.

I do this work because I think that humanity is on a reckless and destructive path

Right. Working for the great idea, saving stupid humans from themselves, while fending off ignorant assholes making fun of your sacrifice. Oh, the pain...

Now, can you list 2 or 3 successful predictions made by climate science in the past 2 decades? Each entry must include a link to a prediction and a link confirming it materializing within 80% of the predicted value(s)... The links for each entry much be 5 years apart or more (that is, predicting tomorrow's weather does not qualify). Game?