thanks for proving my point Rache.

NNN none, but, read the reasons some say Liberals lost in Victoria
THEN ask why would anything they say be right

Here's a list of some of the codswallop predictions by fear mongers that were to have occurred by the year 2000:

We would be living through a new Ice Age by the year 2000.
We would all die when the ozone layer disappeared.
The oceans would be dead.
Global Cooling would destroy the world.
Acid rain would destroy our forests.
Overpopulation would result in worldwide famine.
We would deplete our natural resources.
We would run out of oil.
The polar ice caps would melt.
Manhattan would be underwater.
People who live in cities will have to wear gas masks.
Nitrogen buildup will make the land unusable.
Decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

Eighteen years later and ..... what?

thanks for proving my point Rache.
runner,
cheers for proving mine !

And there it is, just as predicted long ago!
rache,
So, what do we do about it ? Any wisecracks on solutions ? I didn't think so.
All the lefties do is talk about it but what are their solutions ?
Ah, I see, keep blaming the producers of the commodities you can't do without & which contribute to Global warming.
I'm asking you right here & now ! What is your solution to climate change ?
runner that goes for you also, c'mon cough up some ideas that work. We you're against cutting the population so what else have you got up your sleeve ?

"How could Climate Scientists have arrived at the conclusions"

They arrive at the conclusions thy want. For example, take the recent kerfuffle over the US climate assessment report . This report was based primarily upon the so-called RCP8.5 scenario. This makes projections about CO2 levels, population, technology and innovation that are so pessimistic that even IPCC have decided that it is no longer valid.

Yet if you WANT to arrive at pessimistic results then RCP8.5 is the way to go. All the most scary predictions in previous IPCC reports were based on RCP8.5.

Why those making the US assessement would use it is ONLY explained by a desire to arrive at pre-conceived answers.

"And importantly, when the scientific papers are peer reviewed, mistakes have always been found in those that reach the opposite conclusion."

Always? A touch of hyperbole there Aidan. The victory of ideology over facts.

But it is probably true that more errors are found in sceptic papers than alarmist papers, primarily because one gets thoroughly vetted and the other gets accepted without anyone bothering to check. Perhaps read the history of the consensus paper Gergis et al 2013 to see how even major errors are missed when the conclusions are approved. Or look at the more recent Resplandy et al paper which was again, it was claimed, peer reviewed only to have a non-climate scientist find errors in the first page of the paper which, even the authors accept, totally invalidated the paper.

When climate papers reach the 'right' conclusion,they are peer- rubber stamped. Sceptic papers are checked up and down and rejected for even the most frivolous reasons or, often, for no reason at all.

But even after all that many such papers get through uncensored. Not even close to all have errors uncovered.

To give a flavour as to how many such papers are out there that you never hear about because of the need to protect the narrative check this list (one of many such lists)...
http://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2018-3/

For even more fun check this one out....

http://electroverse.net/professor-valentina-zharkova-breaks-her-silence-and-confirms-super-grand-solar-minimum/?fbclid=IwAR0UrPm-Jkg0TBzdi3oyTbmRHfpEiyv9_uL8aVzHk-2CpZFVLHD2fXC9mDo

Don't sell your overcoats just yet.