1 degree of global warming isn't enough for you?
No, it is not enough. Because there are legitimate questions as to how it is measured, how the measurements are calibrated (including the scandal of some raw data disappearing), and what swings are normal. For example, Tasmania used to be connected to Australian mainland not too long ago. It is now an island. Do you think, the shamans of the aborigines living there blamed the sins of their contemporaries for the rising seas back then? Same question about Kodiak archipelago — it used to be reachable from Alaska, but is not any more. The Kodiak bears are now considered different species from mainland grizzlies... Is humanity to blame for that?
And there is a big difference in falsifiability
You try to find a prediction by "climate scientists", that uses a falsifiable "will" instead of the evasive non-falsifiable "may"... The scarcity of such statements itself is an indication, of the state of this sorry non-science... What you can find is as scientific and meaningful as the Geico's commercials: "15 minutes could save you up to 15% or more..."
If you ever found a point where the teachers told you the equivalent of 2+2=5, you could point that out to the world
I don't need to find errors — the purported "scientists" need to demonstrate, their discipline is really a science. And the only way to do that is by showing useful predictions, that have come true. I'm yet to see any.
Try it yourself: assemble a list of link-pairs:
- The first link in each pair shall be to the prediction.
- The second link each pair shall be to confirmation of the prediction materializing within, say 20% of the predicted value(s), if quantifiable.
- The link-targets in each pair must be several years apart — predicting tomorow's weather, for example, would not count.
- The prediction must be somewhat meaningful: a promise, that it will get hotter or colder, is not acceptable.
Give it your best... Can you offer at least 3 such link-pairs?