Now Now Soon,
Babylon Bee's quite a funny site. I like it. But the '12 more years' sentiment only works if the specific science we're talking about has made solid predictions that have not come to pass. That hasn't happened in climate science. You need to try again.

There's some broader environmental activist history at work here. Malthus discussed the math of population growth vs food production growth and warned that there *might* be a mass famine if certain things didn't happen in agriculture. Fortunately the Green Revolution massively increased productivity, and that *global* famine was averted.

Was the prediction wrong? Not really. It was a warning, and then the Green Revolution heeded that warning and revolutionised food production.

The same could be said for the Ozone Hole, where the Montreal Protocol shows we CAN head a scientific warning and take global action. Babylon Bee was joking around with this.

But the predictions of an ice age were just flat out bad math on a known physical property of dust, as the author of that paper admitted within a few years!
http://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

Not only that, but if climate change threatens life on earth, we might USE the study of 'global dimming' to mimic what happens when a supervolcano blows and chucks so much dust into the air it turns down the sun! Problem is, it comes with side effects. The reduced sunlight might shut down the Indian monsoon, limiting fresh water to a billion people!

Basically, you're revealed yourself to have an embarrassingly low understanding of what the science you're disagreeing with actually says. You admitted that you only know a few newspaper headlines and satirical sites. You've shot your own credibility in the foot. Well done!

Tell us, when that's all you've got, who do you think you're convincing of ANYTHING by having this conversation?

Once more why? why would anyone wish to tell lies about the environment
We see, each day, more showing very real concern for man made climate change
More demanding action to stall it
However the denialists still put up silly reasons the science is a lie, why?

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/who-funds-the-climate-change-denial-movement/
Quite enjoyed the read, would like to see the other side read it then show me why it is wrong
But not likely to happen chanting untruths is about as close as they get to that

"why would anyone wish to tell lies about the environment"

Because their cause isn't the environment. They just use it to get what they really want.

There are dozens, probably hundreds, of examples of alarmists saying they want to use AGW to get their political aims. One example...
Saikat Chakrabarti is the chief of staff of AOC and the main person behind the US Democrats 'Green New Deal'. He said.."“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all,....“Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

As I said, heaps of examples like this.

"What happened to his 'dozens' of papers proving a quarter of the last 10,000 years were hotter than today?"

I never said that. I said there were hundreds of papers showing the various warm periods. (I provided a link to a site that showed literally hundreds of such papers. Separately I said that the earth was warmer than now 25% of the Holocene. That was the Marcott paper.

Here's another interesting read for you...http://www.co2science.org/subject/m/summaries/mwpchina.php

In some parts of the world, scientists careers aren't threatened when they fail to toe-the-line.

"Malthus ... warned that there *might* be a mass famine..."

Malthus wrote..."The world's population will multiply more rapidly than the available food supply."

Might? or Will.

"the Green Revolution heeded that warning..."

They were 200 years apart. Struth!

" if the specific science we're talking about has made solid predictions that have not come to pass"

Its true that the science doesn't make solid predictions. Even the IPCC doesn't. But they pretend they do and don't make any effort to point out the errors made by the alarmists. Why isn't the IPCC out there telling the drongos pushing the 12 year BS that they are wrong and misrepresenting the science. Why? Because they, the IPCC, made the bullets and are happy they are being fired. But when it fails to happen they hide behind the trope that they didn't make those predictions.

mhaze thank you for at least giving an answer, and for the giggle it gave me
NSW is five months in to summer like bushfires and at least 4 more to go
Right now near 100 fires burn all over the east coast, seven not under control and flagged as dangerous
My usual rainfall has not been seen during winter, lawns dead
Towns, population twenty thousand, have 60 days of water
My tanks twice the 22 thousand my neighbors have, down to 4500 liters
Believe me I do not want to know [but sadly do] climate change is real

Belly,

I'm not entirely sure what your response has to do with my post, or vis a versa, but yes, I can agree that the WEATHER is currently rather dire. Just like every other period when the WEATHER went into its drought phase. You should check out what it waslike during the Federal drought.

"Dry conditions gradually became established during the late 1890s and several dry areas joined together to create the end result of a drought covering more than half the continent."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_Drought

But Belly, WEATHER isn't CLIMATE