These are a dime-a-dozen. The Internet is full of such lists assembled
The first link just lists predictions. It doesn't actually provide any data showing the predictions were wrong.
The second link is talking about popular news articles form the 1970s....that were not about warming. In fact, the "we're heading into an ice age" prediction in the 1970s was a fringe position not backed by the majority of climate scientists. So, the exact opposite of what you claim.
And I'm not going to bother going through the rest of the google results when the top two are not remotely close to your claims.
Dr. David Viner, a scientist with the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia, told the UK Independent in 2000 [archive.org]. Fail [express.co.uk].
“End of skiing” in Scotland.
"Ski" does not appear in those articles.
With the pace of global warming increasing, some climate change experts predict that the Scottish ski industry will cease to exist within 20 years.
It is now 2017, but snow is still plentiful in Scotland. Indeed, the 2014 was the snowiest since 1945
Hey look! You confused "weather" with "climate". That is an extremely common mistake made by those denying climate change. You should really learn the difference before attempting to discuss the issue.
Also, "no ski industry" does not mean "no snowfall". Having a skiing industry requires either making a lot of man-made snow or having a lot of natural snowfall in the right place, and consistently. You can not make a ski industry out of one year's snowfall, especially when that snowfall is not where your ski resort is. Unless you raise ticket prices to the point where man-made snow can do the job, but that apparently requires ticket prices too high to maintain the industry.
Amusingly, when your citations actually talk about the ski industry, they describe an industry in collapse because they do not consistently receive snow in the right places.....which would actually back climate change.
I made no claims requiring citations
Actually, you did. You made the claim that climate scientists are consistently wrong in their predictions.
And given the utterly abysmal quality of citations you have provided, you still need to provide those citations. And with your claim that they are always wrong, your inability to provide any citations is again rather odd.
That may be too onerous a requirement in the case of Climate Science — the experiments take many years, so any replication is difficult.
Replication in this case would be getting similar results using different measurement methods. For example, tree rings, ice cores, historical temperature data and sediment samples providing results that are consistent with each other.